The sooner the laws change on railway ticketing issues the better.

[shredder1]

I think a consistent approach across the country and TOCs would be helpful.

If I'm running late and dash through the (not always manned) barriers at Crewe I can find the following approaches:

Virgin will sell me a full-price, undiscounted ticket without comment.
Northern Rail might offer me an £80 "settlement" - the so-called 'Penalty Fake'.
London Midland might penalty fare me (at least that's what their posters say).
ATW might move rapidly toward prosecution.
EMT expect me to hunt out the Conductor (according to their website).
Cross Country seem more inclined to prosecute than others.
Can't even guess what the Caledonian Sleeper would do!

Or they might just sell me a ticket on-train (I've done this with both ATW and LM in the past), or they might - any of them - go to prosecution.

Oh, and on two occasions LM Conductors have winked and told me not to bother buying!

How about a consistent system:

You MUST buy before travel if there are facilities (though it opens up the "twenty minute queue at the booking office" scenario).
Travel without - fixed penalty, and name on record.
Then escalates if repeated.
Criminal sanction for systematic avoidance, fraud and forgery.

Thoughts?

I totally agree and well described, hence my original comments.

 

[sheff1]

How about a consistent system:

You MUST buy before travel if there are facilities (though it opens up the "twenty minute queue at the booking office" scenario).
Travel without - fixed penalty, and name on record.
Then escalates if repeated.
Criminal sanction for systematic avoidance, fraud and forgery.

Thoughts?

A consistent system is exactly what is required. At the moment there is not even any consistency within the same TOC on the same day.

"if there are facilities" seems to be a major stumbling block to achieving consistency at present. My view is that where a TVM is provided it should sell all walk up tickets. If there is no booking office or TVM there should always be a Permit to Travel machine or some other way of gaining permission to travel (e.g. the unique reference number system via a help button, as on Manchester Metrolink).

 

[Moonshot]

As a conductor myself, here is what i do when i find a passenger with no ticket......

I sell them one either peak or off peak according to the time of day.

 

[najaB]

Why on earth should an inspector need to question a passenger to determine the validity of a ticket?

Because not everyone is using a simple point to point ticket to make a simple point to point journey. For example, if the customer presents a previously marked period return 'Did you break your journey?' is a reasonable question to determine if the ticket is still valid or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think a consistent approach across the country and TOCs would be helpful.

Again, that is an issue of policy, not law.

 

[sheff1]

Because not everyone is using a simple point to point ticket to make a simple point to point journey. For example, if the customer presents a previously marked period return 'Did you break your journey?' is a reasonable question to determine if the ticket is still valid or not.

Which is something completely different to the context in the post which you quoted when asking the question and is really more to do with possible fraudulent travel than the basic validity of the ticket ....

... the question posed was "I'm curious, though, how you propose that inspectors determine the validity of a passenger's ticket without questioning them?". My answer explained how they should do that in the normal course of events.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Again, that is an issue of policy, not law.

Changed laws could force changed policies, as has already happened after Consumer Law was recently widened to cover aspects of railway business.

 

[najaB]

Which is something completely different to the context in the post which you quoted when asking the question.

The post I was quoting said that inspectors should face a penalty for delaying passengers to ask questions. I gave an example of where questions might be needed.

Changed laws could force changed policies, as has already happened after Consumer Law was recently widened to cover aspects of railway business.

It doesn't matter what laws are in force if they aren't applied correctly and consistently.

 

[sheff1]

The post I was quoting said that inspectors should face a penalty for delaying passengers to ask questions.

It said rather a lot more than that.

 

[najaB]

It said rather a lot more than that.

Indeed - hence my highlighting the part I was responding to.

 

[Via Bank]

@Via Bank In your situation then yes you would have committed the offence of not having a valid ticket however you would have a perfectly reasonable explanation for this as any RPI or guard would see that the ticket was issued by a booking office and would know that the error was down to an employee of the railway and as such you wouldnt(or shouldnt) be prosecuted. But as you done the right thing which everyone should do and check their tickets are correct then you averted any undue stress to yourself.

I don't think you quite understand my point.

What if I'm an average person, in a hurry to get on a train, who doesn't notice the difference? Or thinks the numbers 0123 and 123 are the same (which, in other areas of society, they are)?

Or, on this theme...

If a person has a disability of any kind which prevents them for doing this task on a TVM then, if the booking office is there and open they can do that there plus the railway and its employees would show discretion to said person.

So what if I'm blind, I buy a ticket from the booking office, and they issue me with the wrong ticket? I board a train, I am committing a criminal offence - and I had no way of knowing whatsoever. This is despite having done everything right - paid my money and asked for the correct ticket.

And yes, staff should show discretion and understanding - but there's no guarantee they will. Especially if you fail the "attitude test" (which I find rather offensive - while abuse is never acceptable, if I am told a ticket I've forked out hundreds or thousands of pounds for is invalid, I have a right to be, at the very least, mildly cheesed off, as opposed to being meekly apologetic.)

And this is just considering outright errors made by the Railway. What about areas where ticketing is confusing enough for people to make mistakes?

Consider another example (which I believe we've seen on this forum): a person going to Manchester Airport (in Manchester) buys a ticket online to Manchester Stations. This person commits a strict liability offence by travelling to Manchester Airport (a station in Manchester, with Manchester in the name) despite the fact she has paid for a journey to Manchester Stations - the TVM or online booking system not making it clear that the ticket is not valid to the Manchester station she requires.

Is this fair? Should the railway not bear some responsibility for not making the ticket's permitted routes and destinations clear at the point of sale? That "Manchester Stations" does not, in fact, mean every station in Manchester?

Strict liability is a sledgehammer used to crack a nut. It stacks the deck heavily in favour of the railway (I always like to say that, as in Vegas, the house always wins.)

It catches many paying customers out, making them liable to prosecution rather than giving them an opportunity to fix a mistake (which the majority will quite gladly do.)

It also discourages the railway from simplifying confusing and error-prone ticketing arrangements, and innovating its offering to make it more appropriate and understandable for its customers. (Why do you think tickets to London are still marked LONDON TERMINALS, even when they're only ever valid to a certain subset of the London terminal group - some of which aren't even terminals? And why do you think train operators still get away with issuing those bloody awful Carnet tickets on paper?)

--------

It would be better if the TVMs had a barcode reader - they could scan the photocard, killing two birds with one stone: getting the number right, ensuring that the purchaser has the photocard (without which, the season ticket is invalid).

So here's a radical* idea. Why not replace photocards with smartcards which have photographs on them? Or store the photographs as data on the smartcard? Or, if we absolutely must, print photographs on the season tickets themselves? Or simply print the customer's name on the ticket, and then ask to see another form of ID with the ticket? Then the customer doesn't have to carry around multiple coupons, there's less opportunity for fraud, and there's no opportunity for anyone (customer or railway employee) to screw up by entering the wrong Photocard number?

* not in fact radical - the Netherlands have had this for several years. We just choose not to implement it because… well, the words "p*ss up" and "brewery" spring to mind.

 

[sheff1]

Indeed - hence my highlighting the part I was responding to.

Well, if you are completely ignoring the issuing of an 'errant fare notice' bit between the words you highlighted then clearly you are responding to a different scenario to the one raised, which makes the whole thing rather pointless.

 

[najaB]

I don't think you quite understand my point.

What if I'm an average person, in a hurry to get on a train, who doesn't notice the difference? Or thinks the numbers 0123 and 123 are the same (which, in other areas of society, they are)?

I am fairly confident in saying that you would not be prosecuted in this situation.

So what if I'm blind, I buy a ticket from the booking office, and they issue me with the wrong ticket? I board a train, I am committing a criminal offence - and I had no way of knowing whatsoever. This is despite having done everything right - paid my money and asked for the correct ticket.

The ticket will show that it was issued at a booking office. Again, you wouldn't be prosecuted.

Especially if you fail the "attitude test" (which I find rather offensive - while abuse is never acceptable, if I am told a ticket I've forked out hundreds or thousands of pounds for is invalid, I have a right to be, at the very least, mildly cheesed off, as opposed to being meekly apologetic.)

You do realise, I hope, that there is no such thing as an actual attitude test? I'm leave it to any guards/RPIs on the forum to comment but I'm sure that they aren't expecting meek subservience.

Consider another example (which I believe we've seen on this forum): a person going to Manchester Airport (in Manchester) buys a ticket online to Manchester Stations. This person commits a strict liability offence by travelling to Manchester Airport (a station in Manchester, with Manchester in the name) despite the fact she has paid for a journey to Manchester Stations - the TVM or online booking system not making it clear that the ticket is not valid to the Manchester station she requires.

If you go to most online booking sites and start typing Manchester you'll get Piccadilly, Oxford Road, Airport, etc not Manchester Stations.

Strict liability is a sledgehammer used to crack a nut. It stacks the deck heavily in favour of the railway (I always like to say that, as in Vegas, the house always wins.)

It catches many paying customers out, making them liable to prosecution rather than giving them an opportunity to fix a mistake (which the majority will quite gladly do.)

I see it differently, it makes it simple to deal with offenders, no need to prove intent. Using the usual analogy: if the police had to prove that you intended to break the speed limit there would be a lot fewer convictions, but likely more accidents caused by excessive speed.

The problem isn't the law, it's the inconsistent application of the law.

Or simply print the customer's name on the ticket, and then ask to see another form of ID with the ticket?

It's largely due to the fact that there is no universal national photo ID document.

 

[Via Bank]

I am fairly confident in saying that you would not be prosecuted in this situation.
The ticket will show that it was issued at a booking office. Again, you wouldn't be prosecuted.

But I am still committing a strict liability offence. And this, I am sorry to say, assumes that the RPI is competent and knows what they're doing.

You do realise, I hope, that there is no such thing as an actual attitude test? I'm leave it to any guards/RPIs on the forum to comment but I'm sure that they aren't expecting meek subservience.

But the way one acts does have a bearing on how the RPI is likely to 'triage' the situation. And a person being indignant and embarrassed, and going on the defensive, is not necessarily an indication he or she has done something wrong; it is a natural and reasonable response to being told "your ticket is not valid, you will have to pay more."

If you go to most online booking sites and start typing Manchester you'll get Piccadilly, Oxford Road, Airport, etc not Manchester Stations.

Are you sure about that? Because I just tried this on the Virgin Trains web site, and got this:

Is it unreasonable to assume that "Manchester (Any)" means "any station in Manchester"? "Any station in Greater Manchester"? Or "any station with Manchester in its name"?

I see it differently, it makes it simple to deal with offenders, no need to prove intent. Using the usual analogy: if the police had to prove that you intended to break the speed limit there would be a lot fewer convictions, but likely more accidents caused by excessive speed.

This is not the point. It gives zero recourse for customers who have been treated unfairly, sold an incorrect ticket, or been confused into making an error. It provides a prime opportunity for the railway to extract damages or an out-of-court settlement from these customers, but there is no legal opportunity for them to extract damages from the railway for these errors. The deck is stacked.

I don't think speeding is comparable. Speeding kills people. Speeding killed a friend of mine some years ago. I struggle to believe ticketless travel can result in the loss of life, limb or property, particularly to third parties. RailUK does see its fair share of analogies, but I'm afraid I find this one rather crass.

The problem isn't the law, it's the inconsistent application of the law.

Inconsistent application of the law is a key problem, on this we can agree. But if the law was consistently applied, it would be unfairly draconian on cases such as the Photocard typo or Manchester stations issue. This is also a problem.

At the very least, I would prefer it if customers with an invalid ticket were offered an opportunity to fix it up front, at minimal cost (i.e. by paying the difference in fare, perhaps with a grace period of a few weeks to account for people on low incomes.) A passenger should only ever be treated like a criminal - and they should only ever be considered a criminal in the eyes of the law - if they refuse to pay, or make a clear and knowing attempt to avoid paying the correct fare.

It's largely due to the fact that there is no universal national photo ID document.

And what about the suggestion to issue Photocards as RFID smartcards? I struggle to believe this is black magic that we simply don't have in the United Kingdom.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

To add a new point to the debate, suppose one travels only in the London Travelcard area on a Oyster zonal season ticket. The gold record I have has no tieback to my Photocard at all that I can see and I have never been asked for the photocard in years. The revenue protection is: will my ticket make the handheld gadget go 'beep' or not? So how many oyster seasons are actually used by the person they were issued to?
Incidentally, in Switzerland, the half price and general abonnement tickets are issued with the users photo embedded within the ticket. This might be better option!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I struggle to understand how serious most of the 'suggestions' in this thread actually are, and would want not to waste time on making a serious response to a joke. But I think this one might be serious, and deserves a response:

A change to the law that I would support:

By all means bring passengers up in court or fine them (in effect by removing the ticket, or via penalty fakes, or out of court settlements) for a breach of regulations like the OP's mistyped photocard number.

However the same should apply to railway staff like the case of Via Bank, or the cases of rail staff refusing to let you pass through barriers despite holding a valid ticket, or delaying your travel and interviewing you and issuing you with an errant fare notice despite having a valid ticket.

No such "change in the law" would be required.
Despite the views of some on here who repeat their passionate anti-rail complaints, the mechanism for bringing a prosecution against an officer of the railway who frustrates a passenger's contract to be conveyed is well founded in law. Contract Law is densely populated with claims for non-performance and frustration, including frustration as a consequence of faults by one party. It's not an area of law that interests me, and I can only recall having worked on a small handful of instances of frustrated contracts, but I have no hesitation in asserting that remedies for genuine "cases of rail staff refusing to . . . . . valid ticket . . . etc. . ." are already well established in law, and it shouldn't take any moderately competent local law firm more than 10 minutes to see the route forward to being a persuasive claim against such a railway company. It's really not going to be difficult.

So now we can look to the historical record.
How many such claims have come forward to Court ?
I can think of three.
Two failed. One was settled out of Court.

 

[najaB]

But I am still committing a strict liability offence. And this, I am sorry to say, assumes that the RPI is competent and knows what they're doing.

The fact an offence has been committed does not mean a prosecution is inevitable - unless you remove the ability for staff to apply discretion.

But the way one acts does have a bearing on how the RPI is likely to 'triage' the situation. And a person being indignant and embarrassed, and going on the defensive, is not necessarily an indication he or she has done something wrong; it is a natural and reasonable response to being told "your ticket is not valid, you will have to pay more."

Again, if staff are trusted to use discretion and give good customer service, then it's inevitable that how they are spoken to will affect hour they handle the situation.

Are you sure about that? Because I just tried this on the Virgin Trains web site, and got this:

Is it unreasonable to assume that "Manchester (Any)" means "any station in Manchester"? "Any station in Greater Manchester"? Or "any station with Manchester in its name"?

It might be if Manchester Airport wasn't listed below it. I agree though that 'Manchester (Any)' isn't as clear as it could be.

This is not the point. It gives zero recourse for customers who have been treated unfairly, sold an incorrect ticket, or been confused into making an error. It provides a prime opportunity for the railway to extract damages or an out-of-court settlement from these customers, but there is no legal opportunity for them to extract damages from the railway for these errors. The deck is stacked.

Again, not every breach has to result in a prosecution.

I don't think speeding is comparable. Speeding kills people. Speeding killed a friend of mine some years ago. I struggle to believe ticketless travel can result in the loss of life, limb or property, particularly to third parties. RailUK does see its fair share of analogies, but I'm afraid I find this one rather crass.

It is simply the strict liability law that most people will be familiar with and a pretty standard analogy, it's not the first time it's been used. Sorry to hear about your friend though.

Inconsistent application of the law is a key problem, on this we can agree. But if the law was consistently applied, it would be unfairly draconian on cases such as the Photocard typo or Manchester stations issue. This is also a problem.

Not necessarily. The TOCs could consistently prosecute some breaches and consistently not prosecute others.

At the very least, I would prefer it if customers with an invalid ticket were offered an opportunity to fix it up front, at minimal cost (i.e. by paying the difference in fare, perhaps with a grace period of a few weeks to account for people on low incomes.) A passenger should only ever be treated like a criminal - and they should only ever be considered a criminal in the eyes of the law - if they refuse to pay, or make a clear and knowing attempt to avoid paying the correct fare.

The devil is, as always, in the details - what is 'clear' and how do you prove 'knowing'?

And what about the suggestion to issue Photocards as RFID smartcards? I struggle to believe this is black magic that we simply don't have in the United Kingdom.

That is entirely feasible and has already started. The issue is that not all stations are equipped with readers, nor are all staff. The day is coming, but it's not here yet for all routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I totally agree and well described, hence my original comments.

I agree as well.

In my view the best approach would be that the Byelaw offence would be abolished, leaving only RoRA for serious cases like falsification of tickets[1] etc. Casual fare dodging would be penalised by way of something like Metrolink or SBB's system[2], pursued through the civil courts if the offender does not pay.

And guards not to sell tickets except on "Paytrain" type routes, which would again be clearly defined and publicised. On such routes it would *always* be acceptable to buy on board unless a barrier at the main station prevents it, and ticket issuing equipment would not be provided at local stations.

At stations where ticket issuing facilities and help points are provided (but ticket issuing facility is not working), passengers to use the help point to obtain a reference number to allow travel, as on Metrolink, or if and only if that too is not working to tell guard (where provided) or driver BEFORE boarding the train.

And all of this on a clear poster in several locations throughout the station.

[1] No, not stupid arguments about Carnets; those are the TOCs' fault for not providing proper compostage equipment to stamp the ticket before use. Actual suspected falsification, such as fake tickets.

[2] As an example, 50 quid plus the fare for the first offence per calendar year, perhaps with a small discount if paid on the spot. ID must be presented either at the time of the offence or within a specified period. Second offence, £100 plus the fare. Third and subsequent, £200 plus the fare.

 

[fredk]

The views of some people on this thread show us precisely what is wrong with the railways in the UK. This is the attitude which was meant to be removed in 1993 when privatisation happened.

It's inward looking, inconsiderate, and arrogant. Jump to blame the customer without considering the experience provided is flawed. No company operating today could get away with this, apart from the rail industry backed up by government and a fragmented cluster of operators with different ideas and rules.

I cannot understand those who think it's ok for a customer to be treated as a criminal for making a mistake entering a number. This would make sense when you could only season tickets from an experienced human who would not input an incorrect number. Now you are relying on the customer to input the number, then penalising them if they get it wrong.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Strict liability is a sledgehammer used to crack a nut. It stacks the deck heavily in favour of the railway (I always like to say that, as in Vegas, the house always wins.)

It catches many paying customers out, making them liable to prosecution rather than giving them an opportunity to fix a mistake (which the majority will quite gladly do.)

It also discourages the railway from simplifying confusing and error-prone ticketing arrangements, and . . . .

I disgaree. The application of a "strict liability" test "stacks the deck" heavily against any party who attempts to bring about a prosecution with any prosepct of success, and requires little effort on behalf of the accused seeking to resist it.

The Prosecutor must provide evidence of whatever Offence is alledged to the standard of 'beyond all reasonable doubt' if they are to succeed; while the accused defendant simply has to demonstrate the factual flaw in the purported evidence of whatever is accused.

There is nothing instrinsically wrong with "strict liability" offences - I am quite content that it is a matter of "strict liability" that I am guilty of an offence if there is plutonium on my property without permission, if I travel by train without a ticket without permission, prune a tree in a conservation area without permission, write something on here which is prohibited by an injunction, provide an unsafe platform for someone to stand on, an unsafe vehicle for someone to drive. etc. etc.

Much has been written about the principle of "strict liability" in law, but in terms of Railway prosecutions of the "strict liability" Byelaw Offences, I do hope that you are aware of the actual facts, and not just the anti-rail complaints on here : that most defendants offer no Defence, and / or appear to have no defence (i.e. apparent fare dodgers); that some Courts will not prosecute Railway Byelaw Offences, as there is a strong argument that non-trivial Crime requires intention (i.e. mens rea); that some 'complex' railway ticket disputes have been brought forward for prosecution but where there is in fact a defence and which have been settled out-of-Court or where the Railway Company presents no Evidence; that the bluster about the injustice of "strict liability" struggles to find evidence of injustice in practice.

There are several hurdles for a Criminal prosecution to overcome if it is to succeed - we could consider the 'Evidential test', the 'Public Interest test', the evidential standard of 'beyond all reasonable doubt', the hesitation of Courts to convict a "strict liability" Offence withour evidence of mens rea, and the time and cost of a Private Prosecutor who, where contested, will have to take one or more members of paid staff off duties to appear to be cross-examined.

Apologies if my fondness for the facts clashes unpleasantly with any of the opinions on here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is nothing instrinsically wrong with "strict liability" offences - I am quite content that it is a matter of "strict liability" that I am guilty of an offence if there is plutonium on my property without permission, if I travel by train without a ticket without permission, prune a tree in a conservation area without permission, write something on here which is prohibited by an injunction, provide an unsafe platform for someone to stand on, an unsafe vehicle for someone to drive. etc. etc.

I disagree. I do not believe that any offence should be prosecutable without a need for intent (or at the very least criminal negligence, to cover things like manslaughter) to be shown. Intent is the core of "doing bad stuff". Ideally, in my eyes, what would be illegal would be the simple intent - if you intend to kill someone that should be murder whether they die or not, for instance, or if you commit a particular piece of dangerous driving that would be likely to kill someone you'd be treated as if you had whether you actually did or not - I do understand why that is impractical, but it is how I feel in principle.

I would strongly support the abolition of the Byelaw offence with regard to railway ticketing, leaving only RoRA. The Byelaw too often is effectively used as blackmail to extort £80 Penalty Fakes without ever having any intention of properly investigating the case. Any such "strict liability" penalty should in my eyes be civil only, in the same manner as a private parking "penalty".

 

[Via Bank]

The views of some people on this thread show us precisely what is wrong with the railways in the UK. This is the attitude which was meant to be removed in 1993 when privatisation happened.

It's inward looking, inconsiderate, and arrogant. Jump to blame the customer without considering the experience provided is flawed. No company operating today could get away with this, apart from the rail industry backed up by government and a fragmented cluster of operators with different ideas and rules.

I cannot understand those who think it's ok for a customer to be treated as a criminal for making a mistake entering a number. This would make sense when you could only season tickets from an experienced human who would not input an incorrect number. Now you are relying on the customer to input the number, then penalising them if they get it wrong.

Hear, hear. This is what I have been trying to say, but put far more elegantly by fredk. There is zero incentive for Train Companies and DfT to fix ticketing arrangements that are confusing, unfair, or prone to error.

The default response of the railway to a mistake, or a perceived mistake, by a customer, is "pay up - it's your own responsibility - or we'll take you to court."

This should never, ever happen.

The railway should instead be asking itself: "why did the customer make that mistake? Is there a pattern? Can we reduce the chances of these happening again?"


(And on the Photocard topic, by the way - if buying a season ticket from a TVM, is there even a way to get a Photocard? Does the TVM make it clear during the purchasing process that the customer requires a Photocard? And that the Photocard is a piece of railway-specific photo ID, rather than a driving licence or passport? And that a Photocard and a Railcard are not the same things, despite the fact a Railcard can carry a photograph - or may come with its own Photocard?)

 

[najaB]

And on the Photocard topic, by the way - if buying a season ticket from a TVM, is there even a way to get a Photocard? Does the TVM make it clear during the purchasing process that the customer requires a Photocard? And that the Photocard is a piece of railway-specific photo ID, rather than a driving licence or passport? And that a Photocard and a Railcard are not the same things, despite the fact a Railcard can carry a photograph - or may come with its own Photocard?

In my experience you have to go to the ticket office to get a photocard. And no, TVMs don't provide exhaustive lists of everything that a photocard is not. So yes, if your gym membership card happens to have the same number format then you could use it to buy a season ticket.

 

[Agent_c]

I disagree. I do not believe that any offence should be prosecutable without a need for intent

So someone drives without care and attention and kills someone, you'd be happy ignoring the part where they kill someone because they didn't intend to?

Or, more relevant to this forum, you'd be happy letting a fare dodger go because we can't prove they intended to dodge their fare?

 

[shredder1]

I don't think you quite understand my point.

What if I'm an average person, in a hurry to get on a train, who doesn't notice the difference? Or thinks the numbers 0123 and 123 are the same (which, in other areas of society, they are)?

Or, on this theme...

So what if I'm blind, I buy a ticket from the booking office, and they issue me with the wrong ticket? I board a train, I am committing a criminal offence - and I had no way of knowing whatsoever. This is despite having done everything right - paid my money and asked for the correct ticket.

And yes, staff should show discretion and understanding - but there's no guarantee they will. Especially if you fail the "attitude test" (which I find rather offensive - while abuse is never acceptable, if I am told a ticket I've forked out hundreds or thousands of pounds for is invalid, I have a right to be, at the very least, mildly cheesed off, as opposed to being meekly apologetic.)

And this is just considering outright errors made by the Railway. What about areas where ticketing is confusing enough for people to make mistakes?

Consider another example (which I believe we've seen on this forum): a person going to Manchester Airport (in Manchester) buys a ticket online to Manchester Stations. This person commits a strict liability offence by travelling to Manchester Airport (a station in Manchester, with Manchester in the name) despite the fact she has paid for a journey to Manchester Stations - the TVM or online booking system not making it clear that the ticket is not valid to the Manchester station she requires.

Is this fair? Should the railway not bear some responsibility for not making the ticket's permitted routes and destinations clear at the point of sale? That "Manchester Stations" does not, in fact, mean every station in Manchester?

Strict liability is a sledgehammer used to crack a nut. It stacks the deck heavily in favour of the railway (I always like to say that, as in Vegas, the house always wins.)

It catches many paying customers out, making them liable to prosecution rather than giving them an opportunity to fix a mistake (which the majority will quite gladly do.)

It also discourages the railway from simplifying confusing and error-prone ticketing arrangements, and innovating its offering to make it more appropriate and understandable for its customers. (Why do you think tickets to London are still marked LONDON TERMINALS, even when they're only ever valid to a certain subset of the London terminal group - some of which aren't even terminals? And why do you think train operators still get away with issuing those bloody awful Carnet tickets on paper?)

--------


So here's a radical* idea. Why not replace photocards with smartcards which have photographs on them? Or store the photographs as data on the smartcard? Or, if we absolutely must, print photographs on the season tickets themselves? Or simply print the customer's name on the ticket, and then ask to see another form of ID with the ticket? Then the customer doesn't have to carry around multiple coupons, there's less opportunity for fraud, and there's no opportunity for anyone (customer or railway employee) to screw up by entering the wrong Photocard number?

* not in fact radical - the Netherlands have had this for several years. We just choose not to implement it because… well, the words "p*ss up" and "brewery" spring to mind.

What an excellent post, illustrates well what a flawed network we are stuck with.

 

[Clip]

I don't think you quite understand my point.

What if I'm an average person, in a hurry to get on a train, who doesn't notice the difference? Or thinks the numbers 0123 and 123 are the same (which, in other areas of society, they are)?

Or, on this theme...

So what if I'm blind, I buy a ticket from the booking office, and they issue me with the wrong ticket? I board a train, I am committing a criminal offence - and I had no way of knowing whatsoever. This is despite having done everything right - paid my money and asked for the correct ticket.

.

Im sorry but I am struggling to take you seriously when you invent such fantasy situations which would never EVER result in action being taken against said person that you have mentioned above.


If following the terms and conditions of ticketing is that much of a struggle for anyone to understand then I am astonished.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So someone drives without care and attention and kills someone, you'd be happy ignoring the part where they kill someone because they didn't intend to?

You missed the "criminal negligence" bit, i.e. doing something that a reasonable person would have realised would be likely to kill or seriously injure. Costing the railway a few quid simply isn't serious enough to be anywhere near that bracket.

Or, more relevant to this forum, you'd be happy letting a fare dodger go because we can't prove they intended to dodge their fare?

Yes, I always prefer there to be false negatives than even one false positive. But as I said I'd replace it with a system of civil penalty fares enforced through civil courts for Byelaw-type cases similar to parking offences. Pay your fifty quid plus fare, and that's it done with - no fear of criminal records, just civil compensation. Ensure that the actual sum chosen covers all losses from fare dodging. The end, stop worrying about it.

 

[rs101]

That's policy, not law. The law is completely silent on what form authority to travel takes.

Then it's even more important that the law /conditions of Travel be modified to provide a clear, provable method of authorisation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then it's even more important that the law /conditions of Travel be modified to provide a clear, provable method of authorisation.

The sensible answer to this is that all staff with such authority should carry a pad and a stamp, and write out precisely what they are authorising and stamp it.

 

[rs101]

If you go to most online booking sites and start typing Manchester you'll get Piccadilly, Oxford Road, Airport, etc not Manchester Stations.

Try using Nationalrail.co.uk - the first in the list when you start typing Manchester is "Manchester (all stations)"

 

[najaB]

Then it's even more important that the law /conditions of Travel be modified to provide a clear, provable method of authorisation.

Legislation isn't the place for that to be specified. I'm not 100% sure that the NRCoT is either, but it could be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Try using Nationalrail.co.uk - the first in the list when you start typing Manchester is "Manchester (all stations)"

Indeed, I should have said you don't *just* get Manchester Stations, you get Airport, Oxford Road, etc. as well. If was going to the airport I would select Airport from the list if only so that I could see what time the train would get there.

 

[sheff1]

Then it's even more important that the law /conditions of Travel be modified to provide a clear, provable method of authorisation.

Inserting the single word "written" in Byelaw 18 would achieve that.