TFL recoup £1.3m despite spending £22m on fare dodging. A discussion.

[William2624]

Hi all,

A recent article published in "The Standard" revealed the shocking ineffectiveness of prosecuting fare evaders. It appears that more money is spent on investigations than can be recouped from fare evaders themselves. Clearly, this seems like an unsustainable business plan and is likely to generate enormous losses if something is not changed.

The article can be found here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...are-dodging-enforcement-evasion-b1175002.html

The purpose of this thread is to unpack the implications of this organisational inadequacy and theorise what further actions train companies can undertake to reduce fare evasion.

I raise this discussion out of intellectual curiosity as I believe there is a fine line between increasing the technological arsenal available to prosecute fare evaders and encroaching upon human liberty. One article that comes to mind is the trialing of artificial intelligence at Wilsden Green station which assisted in predicting potential perpetrators that may evade barriers -- it is not hard to see how this tool can also be used as a facial recognition technique that penalises particular ethnic groups/age demographics.

In light of the above, I am interested to hear any potential expansions in legal powers that may be conferred to revenue inspectors when suspecting fare evaders as well as other technological advancements that may assist their occupation.

However, from even a GDPR perspective, I struggle to see how a revenue inspector can go beyond their job role and ensure that a fare evaders is caught. I am mindful that whilst a reasonable suspect can be asked to present their name and address, an inspector does *not* have the power to request ID. In which case, is this not just a massive loophole in the system? Perpetrators can just provide a false name and address and therefore be untraceable.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

This fails to account for additional revenues generated through the deterrent aspect. Revenue control is a cost, not a profit generator. It is designed to be visible enough to act as a deterrent rather than being a standalone means of generating income.

 

[Bluejays]

I'd imagine that tfl have done their research and that there's some logic behind their approach. Judging by threads in the disputes section it appears that they follow a prosecution approach rather than the settlement based approach of many of the Tocs. If increasing immediate revenue was a priority then they'd just follow the same strategy as the TOC's. I think it would be important to know all the reasons that tfl favour the approach they do before declaring it ' shockingly ineffective'.

 

[tskir]

This fails to account for additional revenues generated through the deterrent aspect.

I said this before and I'll say it again: I don't think there's much deterrent factor present at all. The vast majority of people are paying for the right fare because they know it's the right thing to do. In contrast, most fare dodgers either don't know that it's a serious matter (hence a constant influx of new posters on this forum who are horrified to find out, for the first time, that it could lead to a criminal record), or just don't care.

I maintain that TfL, and any other train company, would be much better off investing the money spent on their prosecution departments into improving the automated systems of fare controls, such as installing barriers on every single station, and possibly requiring a validation of the ticket on both egress and ingress stations.

 

[FenMan]

The very obvious answer to the OP is that TfL tend not to issue Penalty Fares, so it's entirely unsurprising that Penalty Fare income comes nowhere near the cost of their revenue protection operation.

TfL use the courts to discourage fare evasion. The Standard article does not mention this.

 

[tskir]

The very obvious answer to the OP is that TfL tend not to issue Penalty Fares

Well... maybe they should?

A Penalty Fare is a very straightforward influx of money into a TfL (or another train company) account with little effort. Even better is an out of court settlement accounting for a number of journeys misused. When people find out (again, most of them, for the first time ever) that they could get a criminal record, they will usually freak out and will gladly pay any amount to avoid this.

I don't think TfL's habit of always prosecuting is doing them any good. I will bet that 9 out of 10 people outside this railway related forum (or is it closer to 99 out of 100?) have no idea that they could end up with a criminal record if they fare dodge. I myself, (and I never fare dodged), only learned this relatively recently, despite living in the UK for 5½ years and using trains very frequently.

 

[FenMan]

Well... maybe they should?

A Penalty Fare is a very straightforward influx of money into a TfL (or another train company) account with little effort. Even better is an out of court settlement accounting for a number of journeys misused. When people find out (again, most of them, for the first time ever) that they could get a criminal record, they will usually freak out and will gladly pay any amount to avoid this.

I don't think TfL's habit of always prosecuting is doing them any good. I will bet that 9 out of 10 people outside this railway related forum (or is it closer to 99 out of 100?) have no idea that they could end up with a criminal record if they fare dodge. I myself, (and I never fare dodged), only learned this relatively recently, despite living in the UK for 5½ years and using trains very frequently.

Penalty Fares are intended to apply where genuine mistakes have been made. TfL's revenue protection operation focuses on systemic, criminal, fare evasion. Two different things.

 

[tskir]

Penalty Fares are intended to apply where genuine mistakes have been made. TfL's revenue protection operation focuses on systemic fare evasion. Two different things.

Yes I know, but I don't think it matters.

My point is: Penalty Fares (for first time / random offenders of genuine mistakes) work well. Scary letters + being open to settling out of court, as almost all train companies do, also works. These things generally deliver value for money.

Religiously going for prosecution Every. Single. Time. does not work financially, and it does not really work as a deterrent factor (in my opinion).

 

[FenMan]

In your opinion.

Given the usage of public transport in London is on a massively different scale to the rest of the country, I'd hesitate to compare TfL's revenue protection policy with a TOC's, and also wouldn't assume TfL haven't tried other approaches in the past.

 

[tskir]

In your opinion.

Quite right!

But I think that analysing this from a point of view of a regular passenger, rather than from that of the prosecutions department, does make some sense and does deliver some insights.

I've lived in the UK for 5½ years. I've been to London (& used TfL services) somewhere approaching 100 times in my lifetime. I have never once, ever, noticed anything — a poster, a public service announcement etc. — which would suggest that avoiding the right fare is a serious, criminal matter. I know that posters like that exist, as I've seen those on this forum; but not in real life.

(And it's worth pointing out that although law isn't my profession, I am a law nerd — I love to look up specific legislations applying to specific cases at random; certainly much more than people do on average.)

I think that most people are just not aware that fare dodging is a serious matter. The mere existence of the TfL prosecutions department does not change this. When some of them (a minor fraction) are eventually caught by an inspector, they of course realise that, but by that time the only course of action for them is usually the prosecution, which is scary, and probably stops that specific person from offending ever again, but doesn't meaningfully help TfL financially.

 

[The exile]

Hi all,

A recent article published in "The Standard" revealed the shocking ineffectiveness of prosecuting fare evaders. It appears that more money is spent on investigations than can be recouped from fare evaders themselves. Clearly, this seems like an unsustainable business plan and is likely to generate enormous losses if something is not changed.

Alternatively, it reveals the effectiveness. Fares recovered from fare evaders indicate in part the extent to which primary revenue protection has failed. Ideally (and I know this isn’t going to happen), TfL would spend £X million and recover precisely nothing - because the deterrent effect (in people’s minds as well as physically on the ground) is so good.

I think that most people are just not aware that fare dodging is a serious matter.m

Unfortunately, many people will consider all kinds of offences “non serious” unless they are, directly or indirectly, on the receiving end.

 

[Snow1964]

TfL have had unusual approach to deterrents for years.

I remember about 20 years ago notices on buses that often had two warnings side by side, was something like No Smoking maximum penalty £1000; Penalty for fare evasion £10

Why one was 100 times more serious I have never understold.

 

[AndroidBango]

TfL have had unusual approach to deterrents for years.

I remember about 20 years ago notices on buses that often had two warnings side by side, was something like No Smoking maximum penalty £1000; Penalty for fare evasion £10

Why one was 100 times more serious I have never understold.

To be fair, smoking on a bus risks the vehicle catching fire, so I'd expect a greater deterrent penalty.

 

[The exile]

TfL have had unusual approach to deterrents for years.

I remember about 20 years ago notices on buses that often had two warnings side by side, was something like No Smoking maximum penalty £1000; Penalty for fare evasion £10

Why one was 100 times more serious I have never understold.

I would imagine because the fare evasion one was based on a much older bye-law and, being rarely used (how do you evade a fare on a pay on entry bus?) no one had seen the necessity of updating the penalty structure (which requires a lot more than just changing the signs).

 

[SteveM70]

Religiously going for prosecution Every. Single. Time. does not work financially, and it does not really work as a deterrent factor (in my opinion)

How many cases have you read about where TfL have taken someone to court for a second time?

How many people come on here explaining they've been caught by TfL and are worried about being taken to court for the second time?

 

[The exile]

Yes I know, but I don't think it matters.

My point is: Penalty Fares (for first time / random offenders of genuine mistakes) work well. Scary letters + being open to settling out of court, as almost all train companies do, also works. These things generally deliver value

How many genuine penalty fare situations come up on TfL, though, compared with the rest of the rail network? Far fewer opportunities for genuine errors…

 

[Skymonster]

Revenue protection should not be a profit centre and it would be difficult to make it one. In any case, I don’t think that TfL is really overly stressed about the infrequent traveller who makes a one-off mistake. Sure, they get caught if the opportunity arises but its not the main objective. It could even be argued that its sad that TfL’s approach might mean a genuine one-off mistake lands a traveller with a criminal record.

A majority of TfL customers use the system day in, day out and I believe TfL is after those who habitually evade paying the correct fare. Those people are not going to be deterred by posters or the occasional imposition of a penalty fare. Likely they are aware of the consequences of their misdeeds, but don’t care. The only way with them is to track them, catch them and get them into court. But it takes time, and it takes resources, which have a cost. TfL is spending money in a way that sends a message to those in that category (and those who might be considering joining it), through being seen about the system and even through TV programs - and recovers lost revenue when they catch someone. Even so, there will be those who take no notice and evade until they are caught, while other potential serial evaders will be deterred by TfL’s approach and the potential consequences.

 

[akm]

I wonder how much money is "recouped" from investigating and prosecuting other crimes. Speeding, drunk driving, assault, theft, ... Oh wait, that's not the point...

 

[Haywain]

The article can be found here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...are-dodging-enforcement-evasion-b1175002.html

Any quotes available from this article? I doubt I'm alone in not wanting to go to an advert-ridden media website.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Does anyone have the FOI data that this article is based on?

Looking on the TfL website they say this in one of their reports:

Some of this is recovered through revenue-enforcement activity, amounting to £7.2m in 2022-23 in penalty fare and prosecution income. Penalty fare income is used to help offset the costs of enforcement but does not come close to covering these in full.

My instinct is that the deterrent effect must be significant. Reduce the revenue enforcement spend to £0 and it is hard to believe the current estimate of ~£150M of evaded fares would not increase to more than £165M (Plus £22M minus the £7M recovered). Whether the current spend is optimal in terms of overall revenue is hard to say. I also agree that it seems to me much more difficult to mistakenly fall afoul of the byelaws in London due to everything being gated and much less opportunity to find yourself with the wrong ticket / no ticket. Personally I respect TfL's policy of prosecuting where there is evidence of intent to evade.

@Haywain here you go

Transport for London (TfL) spent almost £22million cracking down on fare dodging across the Tube and bus network over the last year - but only collected £1.3million in penalty charges as a result of that enforcement.
The financial data comes after separate figures revealed that fare evasion across all of TfL’s services fell slightly from an estimated 3.9 per cent of journeys in 2022/23, to 3.8 per cent in 2023/24 - despite total journeys rising by 300million.
Responding to a Freedom of Information request on the topic, TfL said that the harm caused by fare evaders “is much greater than simply the missed cost of a ticket” as the culprits can often be “intimidating or abusive to our colleagues and to our customers”.
The organisation disclosed that between April 2023 and March 2024, it spent £14.2million on a revenue enforcement team on the Underground and a further £7.7million enforcing fares on the capital’s buses.
TfL said it did not know how much had been spent on the London Overground, Tram network or on the Elizabeth line, as those services are operated by franchisees who outsource their enforcement teams.
On the Tube network, penalty fares totalling £638,520 were issued over that same period, with a further £707,272 worth of fines issued on the bus network.
Despite being run by franchisees, TfL said it was also aware that £560,944 of penalty fares had been charged on the Overground, and £756,534 on the Elizabeth line. In a slightly different period spanning June 2023 to June 2024, TfL said that £32,328 of penalty fares were issued on the Tram network.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I said this before and I'll say it again: I don't think there's much deterrent factor present at all. The vast majority of people are paying for the right fare because they know it's the right thing to do.

I don’t think ethics come into it. In London it is a lot easier to pay the correct fare than it is to avoid paying the correct fare, and so most people will take the easy option. People who avoid paying the correct fare have, in general, had to go out of their way to avoid paying, and so there is a certain level of premeditation that makes it necessary to follow the prosecution through to its conclusion.

You don’t see many “honest mistakes” on TfL because it’s difficult to make an honest mistake. TfL aren’t interested in private settlements with dishonest people. And, to be quite honest, nor should they be.

The TOCs do take a very different attitude and will routinely threaten prosecution as a negotiating tactic, even in cases where it is clearly an “honest mistake”, as a way of extracting a higher fee from someone. Clearly that does make a certain amount of financial sense- look at the sky high profits Transport Investigations make- but it is certainly not ethical behaviour.

Given how easy it is to pay the correct fare on TfL, and given how the prosecutions team focus on people who are going out of their way to avoid their fare, it’s no wonder that we get the figures we see.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi all,

A recent article published in "The Standard" revealed the shocking ineffectiveness of prosecuting fare evaders. It appears that more money is spent on investigations than can be recouped from fare evaders themselves. Clearly, this seems like an unsustainable business plan and is likely to generate enormous losses if something is not changed.

The article can be found here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...are-dodging-enforcement-evasion-b1175002.html

The purpose of this thread is to unpack the implications of this organisational inadequacy and theorise what further actions train companies can undertake to reduce fare evasion.

I raise this discussion out of intellectual curiosity as I believe there is a fine line between increasing the technological arsenal available to prosecute fare evaders and encroaching upon human liberty. One article that comes to mind is the trialing of artificial intelligence at Wilsden Green station which assisted in predicting potential perpetrators that may evade barriers -- it is not hard to see how this tool can also be used as a facial recognition technique that penalises particular ethnic groups/age demographics.

In light of the above, I am interested to hear any potential expansions in legal powers that may be conferred to revenue inspectors when suspecting fare evaders as well as other technological advancements that may assist their occupation.

However, from even a GDPR perspective, I struggle to see how a revenue inspector can go beyond their job role and ensure that a fare evaders is caught. I am mindful that whilst a reasonable suspect can be asked to present their name and address, an inspector does *not* have the power to request ID. In which case, is this not just a massive loophole in the system? Perpetrators can just provide a false name and address and therefore be untraceable.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

The article is fundamentally flawed, in that it talks only about Penalty Fares, and not prosecution "income", or new tickets sold to ticketless miscreants.

Barriering stations and getting the most unsavoury people off the network also has benefits to the travelling public. London remains a comparatively pleasant and safe place to take public transport, partly as a result of this.

 

[signed]

Does anyone have the FOI data that this article is based on?

FOI request detail

FOI request detail

tfl.gov.uk

What was the actual cost of carrying out fare evasion ticket inspections on each of:

Underground,
Overground,
Trams,
Elizabeth Line, and
Buses

For the London Overground, London Trams and the Elizabeth Line, TfL does not hold information on the cost of carrying out revenue enforcement as these services are operated by franchisees who, in turn, outsource their enforcement teams.

The cost of the London Underground enforcement team who carry out revenue control on the Underground network for 2023/24 was £14.2m.

The cost for revenue enforcement on the bus network for 2023/24 was £7.7m.

What was the value of evaded fares detected by ticket inspections for each of these modes?

The current rate of fare evasion rate across bus, rail and trams (TfL modes) is estimated to be 3.8%. Based on our current data the annual loss due to unpaid fares during the financial year 2022/23 is estimated to be circa £130m.

What was the total value of penalty fares charged to those caught evading fares as a result of ticket inspections, again my mode?

Data is for the Financial Year 2023/24 unless otherwise stated:


London Underground = £638,520.
London Overground = £560,944.
Trams = £32,328 (data covers period 25 June 2023 to 22 June 2024)
Elizabeth Line = £756,534.
Buses = £707,272.

The last paragraph is interesting in how little PF are actually written, only around 63k on LU if everyone ponied up the £100

 

[AlterEgo]

I don’t think ethics come into it. In London it is a lot easier to pay the correct fare than it is to avoid paying the correct fare, and so most people will take the easy option. People who avoid paying the correct fare have, in general, had to go out of their way to avoid paying, and so there is a certain level of premeditation that makes it necessary to follow the prosecution through to its conclusion.

You don’t see many “honest mistakes” on TfL because it’s difficult to make an honest mistake. TfL aren’t interested in private settlements with dishonest people. And, to be quite honest, nor should they be.

Quite.

Nearly all the cases we see here are people abusing Freedom Passes or tailgaters.

I agree it is more difficult to have the wrong fare/ticket on TfL than the right one.

 

[Haywain]

Thanks to @KirkstallOne for posting some text from the article.

I would imagine that the amount of fares that can be recovered will be very low due to the low level of fares in London, so the cost of enforcement will always appear to outweigh the amount recovered. I guess this is part of the reason that TfL habitually go for prosecution.

 

[LYradial]

I wonder how much tfl receive in prosecution costs from cases that are prosecuted

 

[KirkstallOne]

I wonder how much tfl receive in prosecution costs from cases that are prosecuted

I think this is the figure I quoted earlier from a report on their website, presumably this is costs + recovered fares but not totally clear.

Some of this is recovered through revenue-enforcement activity, amounting to £7.2m in 2022-23 in penalty fare and prosecution income. Penalty fare income is used to help offset the costs of enforcement but does not come close to covering these in full.

 

[MikeWh]

and possibly requiring a validation of the ticket on both egress and ingress stations.

Given that the vast majority of travel within London is undertaken using PAYG, that is exactly what happens.

 

[Recessio]

I've always felt they'd clean up a lot more if they added gates to the remaining ungated stations. I see lots of people just strolling in and out of my local ungated Overground station, and I doubt they all have paper tickets.

 

[MikeWh]

I've always felt they'd clean up a lot more if they added gates to the remaining ungated stations. I see lots of people just strolling in and out of my local ungated Overground station, and I doubt they all have paper tickets.

They may have a travelcard on their Oyster card though.