The damage done by overzealous revenue protection activities

[najaB]

Finally aren't you the guy who's a signaller? Kind of not really fair to say you don't work in the industry if so: either leave it out completely or give an answer that is the whole truth, would be my suggestion.

Signallers no more work for a train company than air traffic controllers work for an airline.

 

[34D]

Signallers no more work for a train company than air traffic controllers work for an airline.

Yes, but the industry people on this thread are broadly singing 'rules is rules' so I just think it's less than helpful to not tell the whole truth when one brings it up.

So how about itso readers at every station?

 

[alastair]

So, I board a train at a station with only one ticket window.

I arrive at the station 15 minutes early. There are three people in front of me - 2 of whom want advance purchase tickets for travel in several weeks time.

After waiting for 14 minutes I have still not been served so I have a choice. Break the law and catch the train I intended with no ticket or abide by law, waiting in the queue and catch the train 60 minutes later.

I decide to take a chance. The guard appears and I ask for a ticket. They could either follow the rules and issue an undiscounted any time ticket or provide good "customer service " and sell me my off peak day return.

How does the guard know I was waiting so long ? Any one can say " there was a queue mate".

It's a no win situation for the guard.

In the above scenario,would it not be sensible to seek out the guard while the train is at the platform,or at the very least a few seconds after departure and explain the situation with the queue,rather than waiting for he/she to come round. At least you could ask the question as to what fare he was going to charge you. In a smaller station the queue might be visible from the train,thus confirming you were not just trying it on.

 

[ryan125hst]

Apologies if I'm repeating what's already been said as I've not read everything on this thread, by here are my thoughts on the matter:

One of the biggest issues is the lack of consistency. I always buy a ticket from the ticket office or TVM when I board a train as I know I'm required to. Despite Northern making this clear, I have often seen people who have boarded a train at Retford buying tickets and haven't heard the guard telling them they shouldn't. The problem is that they could go to another area of the country and get into trouble for doing something that they've been able to do many times on that line. They're buying a ticket, so what's the problem?

When you go into a restaurant, you pay the bill after you've eaten. When you're travelling by train, even if you buy your ticket at the destination station, know one will be out of pocket. The only difficulty is it would make revenue protection more difficult. I think it's stupid that someone who clearly has every intention to buy a ticket could be prosecuted for buying a ticket at the end of their journey.

Lack of ticket facilities is another issue. Between Retford and Sheffield, only Retford, Worksop and Sheffield have ticket offices TVM's. Worksop's ticket office is shut by about 5pm, and Retford's shuts only an hour or two later I believe. And last time I passed through Worksop, the sole (as far as I'm aware) TVM, which is located on the platform, was out of service.

For passengers between the other stations on the route with no ticket facilities, it can be difficult to pay. For example, if you were to travel between Darnall and Kiverton Bridge during rush hour when the train is full and standing, if the guard can't get to you, you have no way of paying.

The final issue is the poor frequency of trains. You could get to a station with 20 minutes to spare only to be faced with a long queue and broken TVM. If the train you want to catch only runs every two hours, what do you do? You're breaking the law if you board without a ticket. But if you don't get on the train, you'll miss you're meeting/lecture/it won't be worth going on the day trip etc.

Surely it's about time this was sorted out?

 

[Llanigraham]

We don't want rules. We don't want silliness.

Normal people want to turn up at a station in good time, but know that if there is a broken machine or a long queue that they can get on the train (that they have arrived in good time for) and buy a ticket later or, if noone comes around, just leave the station and go, without some gestapo running after them.

On balance I would repeal all of the legislation: no other service industry needs byelaws about people swearing etc, and if there is a dispute over monies it can be heard in the small claims court like any other dispute.

If the TOC's want income they will invest in machines, ITSO systems, etc.

Finally aren't you the guy who's a signaller? Kind of not really fair to say you don't work in the industry if so: either leave it out completely or give an answer that is the whole truth, would be my suggestion.

PP1: So you confirm that you don't want any rules!!

PP2: If there are no facilities or they are broken then passengers can purchase later. Do you think that if there are no facilities that people can get their travel for nothing, as that appears to be what you are saying? And your reference to the "gestapo" really does not help your argument!!

PP3: You would repeal ALL the legislation? So you agree that there should be no legal recompense against any passenger misdemeanors? I think you will find that plenty of other transport providers DO have legal rules covering many aspects of their passengers behaviour, be that ticketing or other matters.

PP4: Which still won't cover all situations, will it?

PP5: Yes I'm a signaller. Where did I say I don't work in the industry? If you note I said I don't work for a TOC. However as a member of this Forum I am quite entitled to post my views on this matter or any other. I note there are drivers and non-rail staff replying to this thread.

Personally I think it would be much easier if all "incidents" such as the matter that started this discussion were to be sent straight to Court as a criminal matter, and with proper fines at a much higher level were imposed. It might stop some of the arguments on here!

 

[158801]

It would be prudent to seek out the guard before boarding - however we a referring to people who may not know the rules.

How many Mavis and Harold's know to do this ? Easy when you know....!

 

[34D]

PP3: You would repeal ALL the legislation? So you agree that there should be no legal recompense against any passenger misdemeanors? I think you will find that plenty of other transport providers DO have legal rules covering many aspects of their passengers behaviour, be that ticketing or other matters.

Yes, because the general criminal laws we have can be used for serious crimes such as vandalism, assault of a fellow passenger, etc.

Your point basically boils down to that you want a railway for the convenience of the staff, and the rest of us want a railway for the convenience of passengers.

 

[crehld]

Personally I think it would be much easier if all "incidents" such as the matter that started this discussion were to be sent straight to Court as a criminal matter, and with proper fines at a much higher level were imposed. It might stop some of the arguments on here!

An interesting proposition. Would you agree that if all railway offences are to be criminalized then we should only be pursuing RoRA prosecutions. And if so do you believe the railway industry should be prevented from pursuing prosecutions itself, with it preferable to the CPS bringing such cases forward to ensure they are only brought in the public interest (à la Scotland)?

 

[Llanigraham]

Yes, because the general criminal laws we have can be used for serious crimes such as vandalism, assault of a fellow passenger, etc.

Your point basically boils down to that you want a railway for the convenience of the staff, and the rest of us want a railway for the convenience of passengers.

And where did I say that? I didn't/

Thankfully I have nothing to do with fares or their collection, but making all fare evasion occurences a criminal matter would make it much more straightforward for EVERYONE; you don't abide by the simple rules, buy before you travel if the facilities are there, then you are nicked.

I don't expect everyone to like that idea, but it is noticeable that those on here bleating the loudest are those that often have the biggest "anti" against the railways or don't actually work on them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

An interesting proposition. Would you agree that if all railway offences are to be criminalized then we should only be pursuing RoRA prosecutions. And if so do you believe the railway industry should be prevented from pursuing prosecutions itself, with it preferable to the CPS bringing such cases forward to ensure they are only brought in the public interest (à la Scotland)?

What has the CPS got to do with it?
There are thousands of prosecutions made every month by many bodies that are never seen by the CPS. They do not need to be involved.

 

[anme]

I don't expect everyone to like that idea, but it is noticeable that those on here bleating the loudest are those that often have the biggest "anti" against the railways or don't actually work on them.

They are probably just passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An interesting proposition. Would you agree that if all railway offences are to be criminalized then we should only be pursuing RoRA prosecutions. And if so do you believe the railway industry should be prevented from pursuing prosecutions itself, with it preferable to the CPS bringing such cases forward to ensure they are only brought in the public interest (à la Scotland)?

I have considered the other option as a possibility - that fare evasion should be decriminalised and the Penalty Fare set sufficiently high that it covers the costs of all evasion. Serious fraud cases could be pursued through the Courts as a regular fraud charge.

This is how it works with car parks - penalties are a civil matter, but if you faked a ticket you could be taken to court for fraud.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I often see getting on a train without a ticket being referred to as "stealing".

Now in any other setting, e.g. shoplifting, you're only "stealing" once you have left the premises. If you're standing in a queue marked "tickets" then how, pray, are you "stealing" anything?

Throwing the book at people who are short-faring, or stopped trying to sneak out of the premises without paying, is fine.

But giving the same penalty to someone who is standing in a queue marked "tickets" looking to buy a ticket is absolutely ridiculous, and shows that the Byelaws are simply unfit for purpose.

it is noticeable that those on here bleating the loudest are those that often have the biggest "anti" against the railways

Yeah, I'm on a railway forum, I bloody hate the railways and everyone who works on them :roll:

 

[pemma]

I often see getting on a train without a ticket being referred to as "stealing".

Now in any other setting, e.g. shoplifting, you're only "stealing" once you have left the premises. If you're standing in a queue marked "tickets" then how, pray, are you "stealing" anything?

On the same basis if you buy a ticket and then the train is cancelled surely you've been ripped off by a rough trader.

 

[najaB]

But giving the same penalty to someone who is standing in a queue marked "tickets" looking to buy a ticket is absolutely ridiculous, and shows that the Byelaws are simply unfit for purpose.

Hate to point out the obvious, but it's not the Byelaws but how they are used. Not all technical breaches have to be (or deserve to be) prosecuted.

 

[crehld]

I don't expect everyone to like that idea, but it is noticeable that those on here bleating the loudest are those that often have the biggest "anti" against the railways or don't actually work on them.

It seems rather unfair that anyone who has a legitimate complaint to make is immediately branded as anti-railway.

Most people here seem to be making suggestions for how the system could be improved. This doesn't strike as as particularly anti railway. If anything it seems to be a pro-railway attitude by making the system work more effectively for all involved. Indeed I love the railways and I use them a lot. I think they're great and so too are the majority of staff I come across. I'm not a member of railway staff, but I'd like nothing more than to see fare evaders face the consequences of their actions. Who knows if everyone paid their way I wouldn't have to pay so much! Or more money could be put into the infrastructure. I do think, however, the current system is ineffectual and needs to be changed, for everyone's benefit. I don't understand the logic of people's objection to this.

The only "anti" attitude I observe here is the vociferousness of some posters who appear oppose this constructive criticism. It seems to me such criticism is not deemed legitimate unless one works for the railway, despite the fact many of those critics happen to have real life experience in dealing with these issues as passengers. For example I have, over the last five or so years, been issued two £80 fines by Northern, been pursued for prosecution by Northern and been issued six penalty fares by other TOCs. In all cases no offence occurred, no criminality committed, no tickets terms and conditions broken on my part. Does my extensive experience of dealing with the railway industry's approach to revenue protection count for nothing?

What has the CPS got to do with it?
There are thousands of prosecutions made every month by many bodies that are never seen by the CPS. They do not need to be involved.

You've clearly misunderstood what I thought was an incredibly clear point. Allow me to rephrase for the purpose of greater clarity. Currently the railway industry can bring private prosecutions (thousands every month by many bodies, as you put it). This leads to a number of criticisms which we regularly see on this forum. These include the fact that prosecution is sought against some passengers who have not actually committed an offence, the fact prosecutions are sought against those who made an 'honest mistake' and are thus a heavy handed approach, the accusation that railway legislation is being used by TOCs not as a punishment or deterrent, but as a means of revenue generation ... (the list goes on).

You seem to be quite angry about people making such accusations (despite there being some basis to them), so I assume you would clearly like to see a system put in place that punishes fare evaders but in which these accusations could never be made.

Such a system could entail preventing railway companies from pursuing private prosecutions for railway offences and handing the case over to a statutory prosecuting authority (such as the CPS). This would ensure prosecutions only proceed in the public interest and so nullifies many of the existing argument presented against the current practice in railway prosecutions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have considered the other option as a possibility - that fare evasion should be decriminalised and the Penalty Fare set sufficiently high that it covers the costs of all evasion. Serious fraud cases could be pursued through the Courts as a regular fraud charge.

This is how it works with car parks - penalties are a civil matter, but if you faked a ticket you could be taken to court for fraud.

This isn't a bad idea at all. The use of fraud legislation happens already on the railway does it not? Some of the most high profile fare evasions cases we see in the media are indeed prosecuted as fraud.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hate to point out the obvious, but it's not the Byelaws but how they are used. Not all technical breaches have to be (or deserve to be) prosecuted.

And herein lies the problem. Many technical breaches are sent for prosecution when they could have been more appropriately dealt with by a stern word and/or a penalty fare issued according to a well regulated scheme. The approach taken by some TOCs means there is no "public interest" test and this only serves to fuel criticism against the industry.

 

[najaB]

These include the fact that prosecution is sought against some passengers who have not actually committed an offence, the fact prosecutions are sought against those who made an 'honest mistake' and are thus a heavy handed approach, the accusation that railway legislation is being used by TOCs not as a punishment or deterrent, but as a means of revenue generation ... (the list goes on).

If a prosecution is brought where no offence has occurred then it will fail. Since it isn't in the TOC's interest to do (wasted expense that they won't get back) so these are an exception rather than the rule.

It's very easy for someone to claim to have made an honest mistake - in some cases it is, in others it is an attempt to evade liability for deliberate action. There is no reason to believe that an overworked CPS would be any better or worse than the TOC's prosecutor at determining which is which.

It is concerning that some TOCs appear to be using railway legislation for revenue generation. This is something that needs to be investigated and action taken if they are - the problem is: by whom?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And herein lies the problem. Many technical breaches are sent for prosecution when they could have been more appropriately dealt with by a stern word and/or a penalty fare issued according to a well regulated scheme. The approach taken by some TOCs means there is no "public interest" test and this only serves to fuel criticism against the industry.

I agree that things could be better, but the majority of complaints are levelled against the minority of TOCs - it may even turn out that it is specific individuals within in the prosecutions departments of those TOCs. It's tempting to say that wholesale reform is required but we just don't know - and there's always the risk that the baby goes down the drain along with the bathwater.

 

[crehld]

If a prosecution is brought where no offence has occurred then it will fail. Since it isn't in the TOC's interest to do (wasted expense that they won't get back) so these are an exception rather than the rule.

Yes they would fail in court assuming it gets that far. But most prosecutions don't go to court do they - people are offered the out of court settlement.

Let's say you board the train at an unstaffed station which has no ticket facilities or the TVM is inoperable. One would hope there is awareness of this among staff, but the fact is this doesn't always happen. They have committed no offence, and by actively purchasing their ticket at the destination they have done the right thing (many fare evaders simply wouldn't bother). However instead of being allowed to purchase the fare at the first opportunity they get their details taken by a third party contractor who's had no substantive training in ticketing issues. They then get a letter in the post telling them they have committed a criminal offence and will be prosecuted and receive a criminal record. Does the average non-RailUK forum member who has no knowledge of railway law and who is worried by the prospect of receiving a criminal record and what it will do for their careers prospects respond by saying "I'll see you in court" despite high chances of success, or do they take the advice on the letter and just pay the £80 to make the matter go away?

As you said it might not necessarily be the law itself which is the problem, but how it is applied in some cases.

It's very easy for someone to claim to have made an honest mistake - in some cases it is, in others it is an attempt to evade liability for deliberate action. There is no reason to believe that an overworked CPS would be any better or worse than the TOC's prosecutor at determining which is which.

The point is it would be more open and transparent, and so would stop the criticisms being levied against the existing system which some people appear to object to.

 

[Agent_c]

However instead of being allowed to purchase the fare at the first opportunity they get their details taken by a third party contractor who's had no substantive training in ticketing issues. They then get a letter in the post telling them they have committed a criminal offence and will be prosecuted and receive a criminal record.

I believe you have forgotten a step. Do not most TOCs issue first a letter saying they are investigating it and give the suspect an opportunity to state a defense?

If a TOC was not 100% certain the office was open / ToD machine was operational, it would be a negligent / foolhardy prosecution team who continued - it's up to them to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Hate to point out the obvious, but it's not the Byelaws but how they are used. Not all technical breaches have to be (or deserve to be) prosecuted.

I would agree, but I'd say that a law that allows a TOC to (threaten to) prosecute someone standing in a queue to buy a ticket is a law that is unfit for purpose.

And that's what the Penalty Fake scheme works on- the threat of prosecution.

I believe you have forgotten a step. Do not most TOCs issue first a letter saying they are investigating it and give the suspect an opportunity to state a defense?

The issue is that the matter is strict liability, therefore in most cases there is no defence.

A queue of 100 Aunty Mabels wanting tickets for a Sunday in November to go to Skegness via Georgemas Junction doesn't mean that the ticket window is unavailable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue is that the matter is strict liability, therefore in most cases there is no defence.

A queue of 100 Aunty Mabels wanting tickets for a Sunday in November to go to Skegness via Georgemas Junction doesn't mean that the ticket window is unavailable.

Given the increased capability of TVMs and the reducing price of technology, every station with a window should also have a TVM. That way that issue is reduced. Bletchley has both, and there is rarely any significant queue.

This is the issue I have with Northern's approach - it's penny-pinching and founded nowhere near good customer service. Good customer service is to insist on buying before boarding then providing enough facilities to do so such that one may turn up the specified time before travel and actually buy a ticket. So the rule is clear, and the facilities are there to ensure everyone can reasonably comply with the rules. Then anyone not doing so can reasonably be considered an offender and be pursued accordingly.

Adding a second different means of purchase (TVM) means queue times become very predictable, because one person doing one slow thing won't block both (you can't collect tickets from ticket offices, and you can't book Advances at TVMs).

Time we got rid of the strict liability offences in the Byelaws and left RoRA as the only option, with a clear need for intent?

 

[Greenback]

I fully agree that Northern's provision of ticket purchasing facilities leaves an awful lot to be desired. This is what gives me the biggest feeling of unease about their fixed amount settlement scheme.

 

[MichaelAMW]

And where did I say that? I didn't/

Thankfully I have nothing to do with fares or their collection, but making all fare evasion occurences a criminal matter would make it much more straightforward for EVERYONE; you don't abide by the simple rules, buy before you travel if the facilities are there, then you are nicked.

I don't expect everyone to like that idea, but it is noticeable that those on here bleating the loudest are those that often have the biggest "anti" against the railways or don't actually work on them.

But what about the situation where the time to wait for a ticket is excessive? You've studiously avoided any encounter with reality by hiding behind the rules and made no effort to think about what should happen to those who are willing to pay their fare where facilities are inadequate or even just temporarily swamped by demand.

So, what is the answer to *this* question?

And I would echo others who make the point that constructive criticism of something you're actually paying for is perfectly reasonable, and that people who don't work on the railway do have some ability to analyse something that they observe or experience. After all, everything relevant is in the public domain.

 

[Antman]

But what about the situation where the time to wait for a ticket is excessive? You've studiously avoided any encounter with reality by hiding behind the rules and made no effort to think about what should happen to those who are willing to pay their fare where facilities are inadequate or even just temporarily swamped by demand.

So, what is the answer to *this* question?

And I would echo others who make the point that constructive criticism of something you're actually paying for is perfectly reasonable, and that people who don't work on the railway do have some ability to analyse something that they observe or experience. After all, everything relevant is in the public domain.

Well exactly, I was at Dartford not so long ago and the ticket office was closed and only one machine was available but common sense prevailed and a member of staff waved people through and pay at their destination, shouldn't that be standard practice in such circumstances?

 

[radamfi]

Are rail staff who don't qualify for free or discounted travel on Northern at risk of getting into trouble by getting on a Northern train, from a staffed or unstaffed station, without a ticket, or do they "get away with it" because they are rail staff, albeit from a different TOC? If the former, then they should be as outraged as non-rail staff regarding the current situation.

 

[najaB]

Are rail staff who don't qualify for free or discounted travel on Northern at risk of getting into trouble by getting on a Northern train, from a staffed or unstaffed station, without a ticket, or do they "get away with it" because they are rail staff, albeit from a different TOC? If the former, then they should be as outraged as non-rail staff regarding the current situation.

They would be subject to the same rules as a regular punter.

 

[pemma]

Are rail staff who don't qualify for free or discounted travel on Northern at risk of getting into trouble by getting on a Northern train, from a staffed or unstaffed station, without a ticket, or do they "get away with it" because they are rail staff, albeit from a different TOC? If the former, then they should be as outraged as non-rail staff regarding the current situation.

When this was discussed before some conductors said they'd allow other operator's crew trains to travel for free even if they aren't entitled to because they expect the same in return and also said if an incident were to occur it would be useful to have an extra member of qualified staff on board.

I'm sure if Northern started getting names of staff who travelled on other operator's services without tickets and gave them a choice of £80 fine or being taken to court the unions would issue strike ballots immediately.

 

[radamfi]

When this was discussed before some conductors said they'd allow other operator's crew trains to travel for free even if they aren't entitled to because they expect the same in return and also said if an incident were to occur it would be useful to have an extra member of qualified staff on board.

I'm sure if Northern started getting names of staff who travelled on other operator's services without tickets and gave them a choice of £80 fine or being taken to court the unions would issue strike ballots immediately.

So what happens at the Northern gate line when a staff member from a different TOC is taken aside by one of the contractors who dish out these £80 penalties?

 

[Hadders]

Well exactly, I was at Dartford not so long ago and the ticket office was closed and only one machine was available but common sense prevailed and a member of staff waved people through and pay at their destination, shouldn't that be standard practice in such circumstances?

The issue is what happens at the other end (which could be one hundreds of different stations) if the staff there claim you weren't waved through by the staff at Dartford.

It's then difficult to prove you were given permission to travel without a ticket.

 

[pemma]

So what happens at the Northern gate line when a staff member from a different TOC is taken aside by one of the contractors who dish out these £80 penalties?

Presumably if their operator does operate from the station they have no problem after showing their staff pass.

If Chiltern passes are valid on ATW (I'm not sure if they are but they have the same parent company) I wouldn't be surprised if a someone with a Chiltern pass who had alighted an ATW service at Manchester Piccadilly running in to a problem with the RPIs and someone showing a SWT pass after alighting a Northern service getting through. The RPIs aren't brilliant here.

 

[Haywain]

They would be subject to the same rules as a regular punter.

Indeed, but could also face disciplinary action and the loss of travel facilities, which for many of us would be far worse than the £80. And we don't have the option of buying from a TVM even when they are available.

Some guards may say they wouldn't charge and I'm sure that is very nice of them, but I wouldn't take a chance of walking past on open ticket window for that chance.