The damage done by overzealous revenue protection activities

[34D]

Have any studies been done on the effects of the over zealous revenue strategies enacted recently by FCC, Northern, etc?

I would perceive that FCC got away with a lot due to its genuine monopoly, whereas in northern land there are trams, buses and car parks as an alternative.

This thread is imo a great example of overzealousness. We forum regulars recognise that a technical offence has been committed, but asking for the extra £80 is basically a dick turpin trick.

When responding, please confine comments to the growth of public transport, and not the technical breech itself.

 

[Agent_c]

Part of it is to discourage you from doing it again. Countless people every day get on a train, don't pay beforehand, and won't pay later if they can see they can leave the station without paying.

If you don't want to pay a penalty fare, it's simple: buy before you board where facilities are available, be on the right train, and in the right spot.

 

[island]

I for one welcome such activities. As a law-abiding and fare-paying passenger, I would welcome the reduction in crowding and anti-social behaviour caused by deterring criminals from committing further offences on the railway.

 

[sarahj]

TBH.

I think the damage done is very little. People who get fined normally pay up next time. and if they dont and decide not to travel in case they might get fined for not buying a ticket. Does the railway want them anyway.
They are called the 'pay when challenged' brigade. Some even try to pay with high value notes just in the hope the conductor will let em off. Many buy singles even though they are commuting and will be coming back in the hope they will get away with it on their way home.

Some learn quickly, others not.

If you every want to see this in action. Travel on the 05.58 Southern service from Gatwick to Southampton. You will see this from Three Bridges and inbetween stations up to Billingshurst. There is a group of people traveling on this train (and others) who we guess work in a factory paying min wage.
Some will have weekly passes,
Some will have key cards
Some will pay when challenged
Some will pay when challenged with large notes (£20's and £50's)
Those who pay when challenged will all buy singles.
Some will try and avoid you.

Some forget that we staff have the ability to talk. So when one was noted on Monday traveling on a out of date key card this was discussed in the mess room. So the punter was checked every day and charged the correct fare, that by Friday he was boarding the train and coming straight up and buying. (still only a single tho').

I've said to some that they are risking it. Could they really afford to loose £1500 in fines?

But I digress.

 

[AM9]

Have any studies been done on the effects of the over zealous revenue strategies enacted recently by FCC, Northern, etc?

I would perceive that FCC got away with a lot due to its genuine monopoly, whereas in northern land there are trams, buses and car parks as an alternative.

This thread is imo a great example of overzealousness. We forum regulars recognise that a technical offence has been committed, but asking for the extra £80 is basically a dick turpin trick.

When responding, please confine comments to the growth of public transport, and not the technical breech itself.

Those who 'breach' (the conditions of travel) are a disincentive to most ordinary travellers. Ordinary travellers buy a ticket and don't have any problems. Those who get caught defrauding the TOC are an irritant to ordinary travellers. Those who get caught with 'technical offences' are generally either not paying sufficient attention to the rules, or are exploiting what they see (erroneously) as loopholes to circumvent paying the correct fare. There are inveitably few cases of wrongful decisions by TOC revenue staff, many of which are the subject of threads in the 'Disputes and Prosecutions' forum, but a proportion of those threads turn out to be actual transgressions that the original posters are asking the experts here for an escape route from prosecution. They enrol for that specific purpose and their names seldom appear in any other UK Rail discussions once their ticketing 'issue' has been resolved.
As you mention 'overzealousness' of TOC employees, their job, like traffic wardens, their job relies on a supply of people willing to ignore rules and take a chance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have any studies been done on the effects of the over zealous revenue strategies enacted recently by FCC, Northern, etc?

The TOCs doing this are ones that mostly carry passengers who have little other viable choice - a journey on Northern's overcrowded Manchester suburban services, for instance, is not a lot of fun these days, but is more fun/cheaper than driving and quicker than the bus.

So I imagine it has no noticeable effect at all. It's just another reason "trains are rubbish", but because the other options are *more* rubbish people keep using them.

 

[Greenback]

It is meant to be a deterrent. A Penalty Fare of £20 isn't much of one, many people will conclude that it's still cheaper to pay the occasional PF and continue to avoid paying the correct fare. £80 makes people more likely to think again, because it makes fare avoidance or evasion less likely to pay off.

That doesn't mean that I agree 100% with the the way that the scheme is operated. There are too many reports of people being penalised when they have boarded at a station with no working ticket buying facilities for that. Northern could, and should, also do a lot more to improve ticket purchasing facilities.

However, there's a difference between a bad scheme and a poorly administered scheme. In principle, i think that providing a passenger who is suspected of a ticket irregularity the option to dispose of the matter by payment of a set amount is fair and reasonable. If someone thinks they have been harshly treated, they can inform Northern of the events from their point of view and see what happens. Ultimately, if they are convinced of their innocence, they can ask a court to judge upon the matter.

I'd like to hear alternative proposals, if anyone has any, to remove the responsibility of passengers to ensure they purchase a ticket before travelling where such facilities are available, as this seems to be the crux of the matter in the thread linked to. It's just my opinion, but taking that responsibility away will reduce the numbers of people who buy before boarding, make it more difficult to sell on board, and reduce revenue for the industry. The last point will simply lead to further pressure for cost cutting, probably by removing the ticket buying facilities that are being much less used.

We will then be in a spiral of decline as was the case during the 1970's under BR. The difference now is that rail use is increasing, not decreasing. Pay trains may have been a workable solution when passenger numbers were falling, I don't think they are a practical solution now, not on many lines anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't object to £80, I just object to how it is done with little regulatory control. I would personally advocate a rise in the Penalty Fare to £80 or even £100[1], but a requirement for TOCs wishing to do this to use the proper Penalty Fares system and not fixed-price out of court settlements, i.e. the choice is either court or Penalty Fare.

[1] Perhaps an option would be, like Metrolink, something like discounted to £40 for the first offence in a year but not if a second offence occurs in a year.

 

[34D]

I'd like to hear alternative proposals, if anyone has any, to remove the responsibility of passengers to ensure they purchase a ticket before travelling where such facilities are available, as this seems to be the crux of the matter in the thread linked to. It's just my opinion, but taking that responsibility away will reduce the numbers of people who buy before boarding, make it more difficult to sell on board, and reduce revenue for the industry. The last point will simply lead to further pressure for cost cutting, probably by removing the ticket buying facilities that are being much less used.

The consumer champion in me would like to see 'pay before you board' only applicable at stations with a barrier line (machine or human) in a demarked place which is in actual operation at the time they pass it.

There would be no onus to go search for a ticket office upon arrival, and if the TOC wants revenue it will be collected either at departure stations or on train.

To put it another way, I'd like to shift the responsibility from passenger to TOC.

Will never happen. Other members on here: please be nice to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pay trains may have been a workable solution when passenger numbers were falling, I don't think they are a practical solution now, not on many lines anyway.

I agree with this, though I think there *are* quiet lines which should remain as clearly branded Paytrain routes. Other than that, the clear rule should be that you MUST buy before you board from a TVM or ticket office (one of which MUST be provided) or report to customer services by phone for a reference if not working, per Metrolink.

That would include the removal of the facility for on-board sales entirely except on those Paytrain routes and except for PFs, though this admittedly would need negotiations for lost guard commission.

 

[Greenback]

Buying on board is certainly a fair way of operating on routes such as the Heart of Wales. Most trains only have one carriage, and the guards are pretty good at collecting as many fares as is humanly possible, even on trains that are quite busy.

The problem is that where there is a busy ticket office, with the result that someone has no tiem to buy before boarding the train, then this implies that the trains that leave form there are very likely to be pretty busy as well, which naturally causes difficulties in selling tickets.

(I'm always reminded of the guard between Llanelli and Swansea who spent the whole time selling one ticket to a guy who have boarded at Burry Port and was travelling to Southampton. By the time the various ticket options and routes were explained, the fares provided, questions asked and a decision made, we were almost in platform 1 at Abertawe - thank heavens it was a quieter train)

I don't think it's possible to shift the onus entirely from passenger to TOC. I could support what Neil has suggested, though, as it has the potential to at least improve consistency across the country. At the moment, you can buy on board some trains with no fear of any penalty even if you've walked past an open ticket office. I think it's almost as unlikely as 34D's wishes come to pass though!

 

[sarahj]

The consumer champion in me would like to see 'pay before you board' only applicable at stations with a barrier line (machine or human) in a demarked place which is in actual operation at the time they pass it.

There would be no onus to go search for a ticket office upon arrival, and if the TOC wants revenue it will be collected either at departure stations or on train.

To put it another way, I'd like to shift the responsibility from passenger to TOC.

Will never happen. Other members on here: please be nice to me.

So what your saying, you want a system that about 99% of users can cope with, so the 1% who dont want to pay can get away with it.
Its a simple system now, you buy your ticket, then board the train. This option also seems to make us staff into some sort of super conductor who can run up and down trains in the 2 mins between stations to find all those who walked passed a ticket machine and/or an open ticket office and boarded, with of course no penalty for them.
and then the extra staff. I'm sure you will be happy for your train fare to increase to pay for it.

So, in the end your saying 'pay when challenged' should be the default??
And you want us to be nice?:roll:

 

[crehld]

I don't object to £80, I just object to how it is done with little regulatory control. I would personally advocate a rise in the Penalty Fare to £80 or even £100[1], but a requirement for TOCs wishing to do this to use the proper Penalty Fares system and not fixed-price out of court settlements, i.e. the choice is either court or Penalty Fare.

[1] Perhaps an option would be, like Metrolink, something like discounted to £40 for the first offence in a year but not if a second offence occurs in a year.

This for me gets to the crux of the matter. I have no issue at all with penalties for those , and having an effective deterrent in place is necessary. In fact in this regard I have a lot of sympathy for Northern and other TOCs who take such a policy. Implementation of this policy leaves much to be desired in many cases, however.

Any scheme should be fair, consistent (nation-wide), effective and should guarantee the right of appeal by an independent body.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what your saying, you want a system that about 99% of users can cope with, so the 1% who dont want to pay can get away with it.
Its a simple system now, you buy your ticket, then board the train. This option also seems to make us staff into some sort of super conductor who can run up and down trains in the 2 mins between stations to find all those who walked passed a ticket machine and/or an open ticket office and boarded, with of course no penalty for them.
and then the extra staff. I'm sure you will be happy for your train fare to increase to pay for it.

So, in the end your saying 'pay when challenged' should be the default??
And you want us to be nice?:roll:

The problem is pay when challenged is the norm in Northern land... mainly because a high proportion of the stations have no ticket issuing facilities whatsoever (not like down south). There's no other way of getting a ticket other than taking your seat and waiting for the guard to come round. We're all aware of how pressured a guard's job is, so employing more on board revenue staff would overcome this issue (in fact on some services Northern are doing this, and I suspect earning extra commission on what would otherwise be down time is an attractive pull for those that do it).

Another option would be as Neil Williams suggests and making the availability of ticket issuing facilities a mandatory requirement for TOCs.

However I've said it before and I'll say it again... operating a strict penalty/deterrent scheme which assumes universal availability of tickets to purchase before boarding does not work when said universal availability does not exist.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I for one welcome such activities. As a law-abiding and fare-paying passenger, I would welcome the reduction in crowding

The example that started this thread was a ticket from Horsforth to Leeds, where the passenger was trying to buy the ticket before leaving Leeds station.

The fact is that Northern make as much from one "fare dodger" caught in this fashion as they do from 36 people paying their fare from Horsforth to Leeds.

If everyone starts paying their fare, who do we think is going to make up this shortfall of revenue? Serco's shareholders?

 

[najaB]

Any scheme should be fair, consistent (nation-wide), effective and should guarantee the right of appeal by an independent body.

I definitely agree that it should be fair and consistent, but it doesn't need to be the same nationwide as different parts of the country have different problems. The lack of a truly independent appeals body is a glaring shortcoming with both Northern's informal and other TOC's formal Penalty Fares scheme.

 

[Llanigraham]

Have any studies been done on the effects of the over zealous revenue strategies enacted recently by FCC, Northern, etc?

I would perceive that FCC got away with a lot due to its genuine monopoly, whereas in northern land there are trams, buses and car parks as an alternative.

This thread is imo a great example of overzealousness. We forum regulars recognise that a technical offence has been committed, but asking for the extra £80 is basically a dick turpin trick.

When responding, please confine comments to the growth of public transport, and not the technical breech itself.

The linked thread is NOT a case of over-zealousness from the TOC.

Quite simple; if there is an opportunity to buy a ticket then it MUST be used. If they don't then the passenger has to bear the responsibility of their failure. The passenger running late is not the TOC's fault.
It is about time people took some responsibility for their actions.

 

[najaB]

If everyone starts paying their fare, who do we think is going to make up this shortfall of revenue? Serco's shareholders?

They would have to as this revenue stream shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[island]

Northern clearly feels that £80 is the amount to charge for Penalty Fakes in order to provide an appropriate deterrent.

 

[Clip]

To put it another way, I'd like to shift the responsibility from passenger to TOC.

.

have you been sniffing glue or something?

Maybe, just maybe if the passengers - who you are a champion of - paid their fare in the first place* they wouldn't get these penaltys applied when they get caught. Its a novel idea and one that'll never catch on but its worth thinking about.


*Normal caveats apply

 

[Greenback]

I would agree with you Clip if it weren't for the fact that at least some passengers have reported being asked to pay this amount despite there being no opportunity to buy a ticket before joining the train.

I think this is where the over zealous part of the opening post comes in.

Having said that, though, this is a fault of the administration of the scheme rather than the scheme itself. I remain supportive of the idea, in principle, to try and make the way out of court settlements are dealt with consistent.

 

[Clip]

I would agree with you Clip if it weren't for the fact that at least some passengers have reported being asked to pay this amount despite there being no opportunity to buy a ticket before joining the train.

Indeed and that is quite wrong(if we are to believe everything we read on here) - however I suspect more are given out correctly for those who don't want to pay.

I think this is where the over zealous part of the opening post comes in.

Having said that, though, this is a fault of the administration of the scheme rather than the scheme itself. I remain supportive of the idea, in principle, to try and make the way out of court settlements are dealt with consistent

Yeah they need to tighten up their procedures a bit and how they go about it but then again nothing is ever perfect in life is it?

 

[ainsworth74]

Indeed and that is quite wrong(if we are to believe everything we read on here) - however I suspect more are given out correctly for those who don't want to pay.

A few people that I know personally have been affected by this and I would assure that they were telling the truth. But I also agree that far more are given out correctly but still when there isn't a proper, independent, appeal system I think it's a worry.

Yeah they need to tighten up their procedures a bit and how they go about it but then again nothing is ever perfect in life is it?

Of course not but equally that isn't a reason to not try and improve things or to agitate for an improvement

 

[crehld]

Yeah they need to tighten up their procedures a bit and how they go about it but then again nothing is ever perfect in life is it?

I'll try that excuse next time I meet an RPI asking why I failed to purchase a ticket at a station with no ticket issuing facilities
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed and that is quite wrong(if we are to believe everything we read on here) - however I suspect more are given out correctly for those who don't want to pay.

This may indeed be the case, but the efficacy of the scheme is fundamentally undermined when these sort of avoidable mistakes are made

 

[Clip]

and most of that is a training issue which Northern need to sort out I think Ive pretty much said that already.

But saying that its a very difficult task to do so because some people will simply not be told but this has all been mentioned before in many other threads.

Serco shareholders.

 

[Greenback]

It's fair to sy that mistakes can always happen. There needs to be some sort of mechanism to challenge such mistakes, though, especially if the company itself is reluctnat to admit they ar ein the wrong.

I think it's easy to fall into the trap of either thinking that the incidents we read about here are just the tip of a huge iceberg and indicative of a massive problem, or, alternatively, that they are made up or resolved to the satisfaction of all without much of a problem.

In my view, it's somewhere between the two extremes as is usually the case. There are problems, no one can deny that, if only because of the human error effect, and the scheme can undoubtedly be improved. Having said that, I don't believe that Northern or it's staff are being deliberately over zealous in the sense of trying to entrap people. If they were, I'd expect there to be a lot more reports of such behaviour, both here, in other forums, and in the media.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any scheme should be fair, consistent (nation-wide), effective and should guarantee the right of appeal by an independent body.

Exactly. The latter being the most important element. Personally, I would change the PF to £80, reduced to £40 if paid promptly, increased to £120 if paid late (or perhaps if more than one instance per year). The fare for the journey made as if paid in advance of travel would be added to this (rather than doubled). Then the TOC gets the choice of PF with independent appeal or actual court, and only those choices.

Another option would be as Neil Williams suggests and making the availability of ticket issuing facilities a mandatory requirement for TOCs.

I think this is the only viable option. The trains are too crowded for on-board sales.

However I've said it before and I'll say it again... operating a strict penalty/deterrent scheme which assumes universal availability of tickets to purchase before boarding does not work when said universal availability does not exist.

Indeed it does not. Which is why I feel Northern want to have their cake and eat it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's fair to sy that mistakes can always happen. There needs to be some sort of mechanism to challenge such mistakes, though, especially if the company itself is reluctnat to admit they ar ein the wrong.

I think it's vital that that mechanism is not controlled by the TOC. Hence it could be a Court, or it could be an independent penalty fares appeals body, preferably statutory. But I don't think a TOC prosecution department should get to decide, as they are not independent nor unbiased; they typically make their decision based on the likelihood of a favourable financial outcome to them, and on that alone, not on the moral and/or legal aspects of the case.

A TOC should only be able to charge the appropriate published fare (or Penalty Fare) to a passenger. Beyond that, the situation should be strictly regulated - and if it is, a higher PF would be more than acceptable to me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't believe that Northern or it's staff are being deliberately over zealous in the sense of trying to entrap people.

I think there are a few cases where they are, namely the additional exits at Manchester Victoria etc, where a simple large "You must hold a ticket to use this exit; if you do not please proceed the other way and purchase one first. Passengers not holding a ticket using this exit for any reason will be prosecuted." sign would solve any issue. But in most cases they are not.

That doesn't mean I find the £80 Penalty Fake policy acceptable in the slightest.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't think that there are huge numbers of Northern RPIs out to deliberately catch people and "entrap" them. Northern's corporate stance is very much that you must buy before boarding (usual caveats apply), or you could be prosecuted.

Providing opportunities to buy the ticket before boarding costs money, though, and that's something Northern aren't all that willing to do. Most of their stations in Yorkshire (that are staffed- most are not) only have one ticket window, perhaps with an additional card-only TVM, and there's no separation between tickets for immediate travel and tickets for Aunty Mabel who wants to go to Thurso via Falmouth and Lympstone Commando, but she's not sure when. I've waited twenty minutes or more to buy a ticket at Shipley before now, and that was at a "quiet" time.

The Penalty Fake scheme is very profitable for Northern- one single "fare evader" from Horsforth to Leeds makes them as much money as half a carriage of people paying their fare- and implementing proper ticketing facilties is not. That's my real issue with the way Northern are dealing with the scheme and how it is operated. As others have said, they're trying to have their cake and eat it.

Look at the queues at the Excess Fares window at Leeds in a morning if you don't believe just what a farce Northern's retailing is.

And I mean it genuinely- Northern's revenue would drop if everyone starting buying before boarding. Who do we think is going to make that shortfall up?

 

[najaB]

And I mean it genuinely- Northern's revenue would drop if everyone starting buying before boarding. Who do we think is going to make that shortfall up?

Are there any publicly available figures for the number of £80 FTP charges Northern are actually issuing?

 

[radamfi]

If Northern are serious about getting people to pay before boarding, then they ought to sort out mobile ticketing ASAP.

 

[crehld]

Are there any publicly available figures for the number of £80 FTP charges Northern are actually issuing?

Of course not. Nor are there figures on the number of incorrectly issued / successfully appealed charges. Transparency does not appear to be a feature of this scheme.