So what's a penalty fare zone?

[randyrippley]

I made a return trip from Morecambe to Kirkby (Merseyside) today and overheard guards happily selling tickets on Northern services
in transit Morecambe-Lancaster
in transit immediately after leaving Rainford
on the platform while waiting despatch at Wigan NW (guard on a Wigan-Lime St service)

All three appear to be penalty zone areas, and Wigan NW is barriered so how does anyone get in without a ticket?
It's great that the staff are being pragmatic and doing this. but it makes a nonsense of the whole penalty fare system.
I'm sure there's enough there to challenge the legality of of Northern's application of penalty fares

 

[ainsworth74]

Guards cannot issue Penalty Fares, this is fairly typical in a Penalty Fare scheme, and instead RPIs issue Penalty Fares to passengers who do not use ticket issuing facilities before boarding (where provided and working). There's nothing unusual about what you observed.

 

[fandroid]

Guards cannot issue Penalty Fares, this is fairly typical in a Penalty Fare scheme, and instead RPIs issue Penalty Fares to passengers who do not use ticket issuing facilities before boarding (where provided and working). There's nothing unusual about what you observed.

But it all reinforces the belief among passengers that buying a ticket on a train is absolutely fine and that getting a Penalty Fare just because the staff wear a different badge is deeply unfair. Then when the passenger appeals, the appeals body repeats the mantra from the TOC that staff are trained not to do that. It's not helped at all by the guards being TOC employees and the RPIs are employed by contractors.

 

[randyrippley]

It doesn't matter that guards can't issue penalty fares.
The point is that company staff are issuing tickets to passengers in contravention of company alleged policy and alleged training, so raising inconsistencies in how customers are handled.
Effectively it renders the system arbitrary and potentially an abuse of process. The company has multiple ways of handling a situation - some with a penalty, some without, depending on the luck of the draw. That's not a legally defensible position

 

[AlterEgo]

It doesn't matter that guards can't issue penalty fares.
The point is that company staff are issuing tickets to passengers in contravention of company alleged policy and alleged training, so raising inconsistencies in how customers are handled.
Effectively it renders the system arbitrary and potentially an abuse of process. The company has multiple ways of handling a situation - some with a penalty, some without, depending on the luck of the draw. That's not a legally defensible position

That’s not going to get very far, because in the Regulations only Authorised Collectors can issue penalty fares. The system is working exactly as it was meant to. Guards can sell tickets but only RPIs can issue PFs. This has been the case for the whole time PFs have been a thing.

 

[ainsworth74]

But it all reinforces the belief among passengers that buying a ticket on a train is absolutely fine and that getting a Penalty Fare just because the staff wear a different badge is deeply unfair. Then when the passenger appeals, the appeals body repeats the mantra from the TOC that staff are trained not to do that. It's not helped at all by the guards being TOC employees and the RPIs are employed by contractors.

Oh no I quite agree it's barmy that one day you'll be sold a ticket on board with a smile and the next day you'll be given a Penalty Fare. But that's the rules operating as written! Though I think Northern do have some directly employed RPIs, certainly the ones on my line I believe are Northern staff rather than contractors. They've certainly recruited RPIs directly around here before!

It doesn't matter that guards can't issue penalty fares.
The point is that company staff are issuing tickets to passengers in contravention of company alleged policy and alleged training, so raising inconsistencies in how customers are handled.
Effectively it renders the system arbitrary and potentially an abuse of process. The company has multiple ways of handling a situation - some with a penalty, some without, depending on the luck of the draw. That's not a legally defensible position

As @AlterEgo said. The regulations are operating as they always have in every Penalty Fare scheme. If you wish to challenge I suppose you could bring a Judicial Review but the scheme is operating as the regulations intend and indeed all Penalty Fare schemes around the country operate.

 

[randyrippley]

That’s not going to get very far, because in the Regulations only Authorised Collectors can issue penalty fares. The system is working exactly as it was meant to. Guards can sell tickets but only RPIs can issue PFs. This has been the case for the whole time PFs have been a thing.

Which makes the application of the regulations an abuse of process

 

[AlterEgo]

Which makes the application of the regulations an abuse of process

That’s not what abuse of process means.

 

[swt_passenger]

Didn’t the PF rules used to require onboard sales to be printed with a warning on the reverse, at least on CC sized stock?

 

[transportphoto]

I guess there’s half an argument that the guards would rather sell the tickets on the train… opportunities for commission are somewhat limited these days!!

 

[skyhigh]

Didn’t the PF rules used to require onboard sales to be printed with a warning on the reverse, at least on CC sized stock?

All Northern PRT stock has this warning on the reverse.

I guess there’s half an argument that the guards would rather sell the tickets on the train… opportunities for commission are somewhat limited these days!!

Guards have management moaning at them if they don't sell enough tickets. They also receive nothing for completing a TIR and can't issue a Penalty Fare. So what else are they supposed to do, refuse to sell a ticket and watch the revenue walk off?

 

[Kite159]

All three appear to be penalty zone areas, and Wigan NW is barriered so how does anyone get in without a ticket?

Wigan Wallgate has barriers, but Wigan North Western is open.

As for getting via the barriers at Wallgate, maybe that passenger arrived on a train heading to/from Southport and needed to buy a ticket but didn't have time to do so when changing at Wallgate.

 

[AlterEgo]

Wigan Wallgate has barriers, but Wigan North Western is open.

As for getting via the barriers at Wallgate, maybe that passenger arrived on a train heading to/from Southport and needed to buy a ticket but didn't have time to do so when changing at Wallgate.

It doesn’t matter if the stations are barriered or not either. Penalty Fares are issued for a range of ticketing misdemeanours, not just “no ticket at all”.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Didn’t the PF rules used to require onboard sales to be printed with a warning on the reverse, at least on CC sized stock?

No - the warnings on tickets were advisory but never part of the regulations. The only statutory requirement is the display of posters at stations from which Penalty Fares apply; the wording states that 'You may have to pay...' or 'You may be charged a Penalty Fares'.

 

[ainsworth74]

All Northern PRT stock has this warning on the reverse.

I've also heard more than a few Northern conductors verbally give a warning (in a friendly and helpful way rather than judgemental or mean spirited!) as well.

Which makes the application of the regulations an abuse of process

Well I wish you best of luck in running that argument should you ever be issued a Penalty Fare. I don't rate your chances however if you're defence is solely down to conductors selling tickets rather than issuing Penalty Fares.

 

[furlong]

No - the warnings on tickets were advisory but never part of the regulations.

They (or something equivalent) were mandatory until the DfT issued new regulations a few years ago.

But they are effectively still mandatory as the underlying reason they were introduced hasn't changed - namely to protect the railway by making it harder for a passenger to persuade a court to let them off because the railway is punishing behaviour one day that it encourages another day (that may be argued brings the law into disrepute rendering it unenforceable).

The SRA laid this out as follows:

Selling tickets on penalty fares trains
4.34 The basic principle of any penalty fares scheme is that passengers must buy their tickets before they get on their train. If passengers find that they can buy their ticket on the train from the conductor or guard, it undermines this message. For this reason, we will not allow tickets to be sold on penalty fares trains unless either:
a) the on-train staff are trained as, and act as, authorised collectors, so they can charge a penalty fare to any passenger who is liable for one; or
b) the on-train staff issue a printed penalty fares warning, as well as a ticket, to any passenger who is liable to a penalty fare, and draw the passenger’s attention to the warning.
In the case of (b), on-train staff must be given suitable training (and, when necessary, refresher training) in how the penalty fares scheme works, and how to issue these penalty fares warnings. A system must also be in place to make sure that on-train staff use the warnings properly.
...
5.17 The description of the [Penalty Fares] scheme should normally say one of the following.
a) The operator does not intend to train its on-train staff as authorised collectors. However, staff who are not trained as authorised collectors will not be allowed to sell tickets on board penalty fares trains unless they are accompanied by an authorised collector.
b) The operator will train its on-train staff as authorised collectors. Any staff who are not trained as authorised collectors will not be allowed to sell tickets on board penalty fares trains unless they are accompanied by an authorised collector.
c) The operator does not intend to train on-train staff as authorised collectors. On-train staff will check and sell tickets on board penalty fares trains, but will give a printed penalty fares warning to any passenger who is liable to a penalty fare, and draw that passenger’s attention to the warning.

5.18 In the case of penalty fares schemes which use the printed warnings described in c above, the following information must also be provided.
• The wording and a description of the printed warning, and details of how it will be issued.
• Details of the training which on-train staff will receive about the principles of the penalty fares scheme and how to use the printed penalty fares warning.
• Details of ‘refresher’ training which on-train staff will receive and how often it will be given.
• Details of the processes and procedures which the operator will use to make sure that each member of on-train staff issues the penalty fares warnings properly.

Of course we all know that nobody ensured that the train companies were really doing the training and monitoring, but it remains that case today that if a ticket is sold on board when a PF could have been issued the person selling it needs to mention that and being able to point to something on the back of the ticket makes that easy. Even if they don't mention it, having it there promotes consistency and weakens a 'disrepute' argument.

That SRA reasoning could still be cited in court in support of someone trying to avoid paying on the grounds that they had previously bought tickets on board without the company telling them this was wrong. The current retort to that is "Are you seriously trying to make us believe that in all your X journeys no member of staff ever mentioned this and you never ever looked at the back of your ticket, not even once?"

 

[Starmill]

Well I wish you best of luck in running that argument should you ever be issued a Penalty Fare. I don't rate your chances however if you're defence is solely down to conductors selling tickets rather than issuing Penalty Fares.

Personally I think that a claim that the charges are unfair because railway company policy is irrational would be fascinating to watch. I'd love to hear the arguments.

However, precisely as you say I'd not be wanting to rely on the outcome myself, not a chance.

Effectively it renders the system arbitrary

The whole thing is indeed completely arbitrary. There are also very few checks onboard trains by authorised collectors, it's very rare. Another thing that makes it totally arbitrary is the absence of live retail status for large stations. On train staff still can't get live retail status from Avanti West Coast, so if the customer says the ticket office at Oxenholme Lake District was closed, either an honest person is going to be issued a Penalty Fare or someone trying to avoid paying is going to get off scot free. The ticket machine is inside the ticket office, so if it's closed the ticket machine will be switched on and in working order, but it will be inside a locked space.

It's not helped at all by the guards being TOC employees and the RPIs are employed by contractors.

There are both at Northern.

 

[tomuk]

Guards cannot issue Penalty Fares, this is fairly typical in a Penalty Fare scheme, and instead RPIs issue Penalty Fares to passengers who do not use ticket issuing facilities before boarding (where provided and working). There's nothing unusual about what you observed.

Which is ridiculous. Either the guard sells on board completely defeating the purpose of a penalty fare zone or reports the customer leading to an out of court settlement or worse. If we are going to have a penalty fare scheme it should be used prpoerly.

That’s not going to get very far, because in the Regulations only Authorised Collectors can issue penalty fares. The system is working exactly as it was meant to. Guards can sell tickets but only RPIs can issue PFs. This has been the case for the whole time PFs have been a thing.

Guards should be given the appropriate training if any is required to be designated Authorised Collectors.

 

[Starmill]

Guards should be given the appropriate training if any is required to be designated Authorised Collectors.

This is simply not going to happen.

 

[tomuk]

This is simply not going to happen.

And why not? If a guard is capable of issuing a ticket or reporting a fare irregularity why can't they issue penalty fares?

 

[Starmill]

And why not? If a guard is capable of issuing a ticket or reporting a fare irregularity why can't they issue penalty fares?

Because it's so pointless! If a customer just walks away and then leaves the train, what are they going to do about it? Some of the Southeastern onboard manager and GTR onboard supervisor staff are authorised collectors, but they issue almost no penalty fares because it's a complete waste of time trying when your train stops every five minutes and you can't leave the train. A Guard working the train doors, as on Northern, would have even less time than these staff do. Most onboard ticket checking is only there for customer service reasons and to give an impression to honest customers that people are being asked to pay, and to deter the thought of trying to avoid paying in the future for dishonest ones. It's comparatively rare for a full team of revenue staff to work on a train rather than at a station. Of course it varies by operator and at ones where there's usually no second member of staff it's much more common for this kind of onboard check to take place. Greater Anglia do it all the time for example on their services which have no conductor.

Reporting of ticket irregularities can still be made even if you don't get the person's details by logging a description of them and when and where they travelled. That is worthwhile doing because it provides background intelligence.

 

[AlterEgo]

And why not? If a guard is capable of issuing a ticket or reporting a fare irregularity why can't they issue penalty fares?

Issuing penalty fares is often complex and laborious, and RPIs have a different skill set to guards anyway. Most penalty fare areas are in relatively high density rail areas with more frequent stops, so a guard might never get around to completing a penalty fare.

 

[fandroid]

I'm not saying it's the guards fault and not even the RPIs' fault. There are practical reasons all round for what has been developed and how it's implemented at the moment. It's just that the overall system is insanely perverse from a passenger's point of view and strikes directly at that ordinary person's hope in being fairly treated under a consistent set of rules. As I said before, it's a lottery and, to the passenger, seems to only depend on exactly what badge is worn by an otherwise very similar looking staff member.

The TfL approach is basically more honest and straightforward. No ticket means a penalty fare if challenged by an appropriate person. Everyone knows the rules. We see that on the Disputes and Prosecutions sub-forum with the TfL cases.

 

[rg177]

I used to issue PFNs. If you knew who the person was and they were already on the system, it'd take two minutes if you were very lucky.

My record is about 30 minutes when I've been given false details, dates of birth, given abuse, all the awkwardness you'd expect. I would not want to also be in charge of the safety of everyone else on a train in between. Even when I knew what I was doing and had a fully co-operative person, it'd take maybe five minutes start to finish by the time they explain themselves, you explain what's going to happen, take details, issue it, explain what's been issued. Some stations are less than five minutes apart.

Both jobs require your full attention - it only takes one slip up and you could have a variety of situations like a non-compliant PFN, all the way up to your back being turned and the person doing a runner.

If you have a guard getting into more aggro as they're trying to issue a PFN between operating the doors, you're just increasing the likelihood of disruption to the operation of the service.

It's frustrating yes having someone issue you a ticket one day then a PFN the next, but making guards issue PFNs will hardly make a difference.

 

[Snow1964]

Guards have management moaning at them if they don't sell enough tickets. They also receive nothing for completing a TIR and can't issue a Penalty Fare. So what else are they supposed to do, refuse to sell a ticket and watch the revenue walk off?

Out of interest do management expect tickets to be sold on train from a station within a penalty fare zone, or is their data filtered to only base it on stations outside the zone.

Would it not be more logical to have them work in pairs (guard checking tickets with RPI) even if alternate trains are missed within penalty fare zones, so there is someone who can write the penalty rather than watch revenue walk off.

Or is this to logical for Northern, in which case the Ops original question, why have the zone has some basis.

 

[Starmill]

It's just that the overall system is insanely perverse from a passenger's point of view and strikes directly at that ordinary person's hope in being fairly treated under a consistent set of rules.

You're unlikely to be treated more or less "fairly" whether the guard is an authorised collector or not.

As I said before, it's a lottery and, to the passenger, seems to only depend on exactly what badge is worn by an otherwise very similar looking staff member.

It's arbitrary because that's what is convenient for the company. Changing it to make it more "fair" would cost a lot of money so that won't be happening for the foreseeable future.

Would it not be more logical to have them work in pairs (guard checking tickets with RPI) even if alternate trains are missed within penalty fare zones, so there is someone who can write the penalty rather than watch revenue walk off.

Not a chance that an authorised collector could be provided on 50% of Northern services to work with the Conductor. The available onboard staff might cover about 1% of services... Obviously you could choose to redeploy the ones from stations onto trains, but at stations without ticket gates that would result in no checks there at all e.g. Manchester Piccadilly platforms 8-14. This would also cost money in restructuring staff numbers and locations.

Or is this to logical for Northern, in which case the Ops original question, why have the zone has some basis.

The company can and will accuse you of an offence and have you give your name and address if you board the train without a ticket at say Runcorn East, and will probably do just that as they can't issue a Penalty Fare. So having the scheme isn't really more or less "fair" anyway, it's all value judgements that people will feel slightly differently about. They could do this instead of issuing a Penalty Fare in any case, it's just that a PF sounds a bit scarier in their posters that say " You'll be given a £100 FINE". And the paperwork is a bit easier.

 

[thedbdiboy]

They (or something equivalent) were mandatory until the DfT issued new regulations a few years ago.

But they are effectively still mandatory as the underlying reason they were introduced hasn't changed - namely to protect the railway by making it harder for a passenger to persuade a court to let them off because the railway is punishing behaviour one day that it encourages another day (that may be argued brings the law into disrepute rendering it unenforceable).

If it's not in the regulations its not mandatory. But I agree that it is good practice to ensure adequate warnings. However, the rapid move away from paper tickets makes warnings on that media far less useful than it may have been at one time. I think a more significant issue remains the lack of consistency across the Regulation of the Railways Act, the ByeLaws, the Penalty Fares Act and use of the Fraud Act by TOCs; however this is all ultimately an issue that DfT does not seem a priority.
As you say, the ultimate test of all this is in a court of law.

 

[Krokodil]

Out of interest do management expect tickets to be sold on train from a station within a penalty fare zone, or is their data filtered to only base it on stations outside the zone.

Management will just look at the gross takings and pull up anyone significantly below the depot average.

 

[185]

And why not? If a guard is capable of issuing a ticket or reporting a fare irregularity why can't they issue penalty fares?

Guard has far more important duties - doors, announcements, safety, than getting wrapped up in taking details for a penalty fare. It's only just feasible to issue unpaid fares notices. The impact on performance and punctuality is high and to expect guards to do this ontop of ticket sales is ill thought out. The risk of conflict is also high, working alone issuing penalty fares is also likely to impact on performance and punctuality.

To have a real impact on revenue protection government should-

Beef auto gatelines / human barriers, there are so many major stations you can just walk on inc Euston, Liverpool etc.
Ensure all major hubs & interchanges have on-call RPIs available to all companies staff to assist.
Push BTP officers to show presence on platforms when trains arrive for at least 2 hour of their shifts.
Raise the minimum court penalty for fare evasion to £400.

 

[island]

Raise the minimum court penalty for fare evasion to £400.

On that last one, the vast majority of fare evasion cases that make it to court get a fine of £220, surcharge of £88, £100 costs, plus compensation in the amount of the unpaid fare, which is already above £400.