TPE and Promise to Pay

[yorkie]

https://twitter.com/TPEassist/status/1222904611477942273

Hi Paul, In this instance you would collect a 'promise to pay' from the ticket machine. ^SO

TPE are advising passengers to obtain Promise to Pay coupons. Are TPE piggybacking on Northern's 'promise to pay' concept?

Have TPE programmed their own machines to issue these?

Is there anything in relevant legislation that allows TPE to penalise a customer who is unable to buy a ticket from their origin, purely for not being in possession of a "promise to pay" coupon?

 

[Intermodal]

Is there anything in relevant legislation that allows TPE to penalise a customer who is unable to buy a ticket from their origin, purely for not being in possession of a "promise to pay" coupon?

Penalise in what way? Condition 6 is quite clear about requiring a Permit to Travel (which I think you could reasonably interpret as to include a 'Promise to Pay') if you board at a Penalty Fare station and Condition 10 sets out the penalties that can apply in that case.

Condition 10 states that an SDS can be charged, or that they can be reported for prosecution. I'm not sure legislation would really come into charging an SDS or other Anytime ticket, that is a matter of contract between the TOC and the passenger, surely? I don't think this particular question regarding being charged a higher price is up for much debate.

The prosecution question is a more interesting one. Are you asking whether you think a TOC could get away with prosecuting someone who boarded without a Promise to Pay but did attempt to pay as soon as the Guard came round or at their first opportunity? I think this is an interesting question and I'm not really sure of the answer. Surely it would come down to the same criteria as any prosecution? Do you think a court would entertain that intent to evade under the Regulation of Railways Act could be proven by the lack of a Promise to Pay?

 

[yorkie]

Penalise in what way? Condition 6 is quite clear about requiring a Permit to Travel (which I think you could reasonably interpret as to include a 'Promise to Pay') if you board at a Penalty Fare station and Condition 10 sets out the penalties that can apply in that case.

Is this an suggestion that TPE are misusing a Promise to Pay (which appears to be for a specific subset of the potential reasons for being unable to purchase a ticket at the origin, and not for all potential reasons) in lieu of the bona-fide Permit to Travel coupons mandated in the legislation, I wonder?

Condition 10 states that an SDS can be charged, or that they can be reported for prosecution. I'm not sure legislation would really come into charging an SDS or other Anytime ticket, that is a matter of contract between the TOC and the passenger, surely? I don't think this particular question regarding being charged a higher price is up for much debate.

Under the NRCoT the full fare can be charged if the customer was able to buy the fare, using their chosen payment method, and simply decided not to. A promise to pay doesn't come into that equation.

Likewise, if the passenger is demonstrating intent to avoid the fare they can be reported for prosecution. Again a Promise to pay is not relevant there.

But I am talking specifically about Penalty Fares and the legislation applying to the issuing of PFs

The prosecution question is a more interesting one. Are you asking whether you think a TOC could get away with prosecuting someone who boarded without a Promise to Pay but did attempt to pay as soon as the Guard came round or at their first opportunity? I think this is an interesting question and I'm not really sure of the answer. Surely it would come down to the same criteria as any prosecution? Do you think a court would entertain that intent to evade under the Regulation of Railways Act could be proven by the lack of a Promise to Pay?

If the customer is paying by cash, there is no opportunity to buy before boarding. There is no requirement in the NRCoT or the law to obtain a promise to pay when paying by cash. This is a suggestion that Northern have made, and now TPE are making that suggestion. But it holds no legal weight and isn't part of the actual Conditions of Travel.

 

[sheff1]

Condition 6 is quite clear about requiring a Permit to Travel (which I think you could reasonably interpret as to include a 'Promise to Pay') ....

I am not convinced. The definition of Permit to Travel in the NRCoT is
“Permit to Travel” means a document obtainable from self-service machines at some stations that allows you to travel by train until you have a reasonable opportunity to buy the Ticket you need for your journey, for a period of not more than 2 hours from the time of issue. The price you will have to pay for your Ticket will be reduced by the amount you have paid for the Permit to Travel"

A Promise to Pay from Northern TVMs (I haven't seen a TPE PtP) states that is valid for up to four hours, i.e. twice the period allowed by a Permit to Travel.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I suspect the logic behind calling them a Promise to Pay rather than a Permit to Travel is that they don't require (part) payment to obtain.

To the man on the Clapham Omnibus they're functionally identical, in that they provide you with proof of your origin station and time. YMMV, of course.

 

[sheff1]

I suspect the logic behind calling them a Promise to Pay rather than a Permit to Travel is that they don't require (part) payment to obtain.

I see no logical reason why Northern/TPE did not intoduce a Permit Travel which (i) does not require payment to obtain (ii) is valid for 2 hours. That way they would clearly be covered by the NRCoT rather than sit outside those conditions as the PtPs do.

 

[Intermodal]

Is this an suggestion that TPE are misusing a Promise to Pay (which appears to be for a specific subset of the potential reasons for being unable to purchase a ticket at the origin, and not for all potential reasons) in lieu of the bona-fide Permit to Travel coupons mandated in the legislation, I wonder?

Under the NRCoT the full fare can be charged if the customer was able to buy the fare, using their chosen payment method, and simply decided not to. A promise to pay doesn't come into that equation.

Likewise, if the passenger is demonstrating intent to avoid the fare they can be reported for prosecution. Again a Promise to pay is not relevant there.

But I am talking specifically about Penalty Fares and the legislation applying to the issuing of PFs

If the customer is paying by cash, there is no opportunity to buy before boarding. There is no requirement in the NRCoT or the law to obtain a promise to pay when paying by cash. This is a suggestion that Northern have made, and now TPE are making that suggestion. But it holds no legal weight and isn't part of the actual Conditions of Travel.

You make some very compelling points and I cannot disagree with them. I am arguing as a devil's advocate to a degree as I am not a huge fan of the PTP system, although you of course do know my involvement with it.

The only other argument that I would put to you is that does the Promise to Pay, if advertised widely and broadly at stations (as it now is), not become part of the contract with the company? If a passenger is made aware sufficiently in advance that the policy is now that you must obtain one, is that not reasonable notice of the terms of the contract changing?

It is bad form that they are using a device which is not explicitly mentioned in the NRCoT or in legislation, but is it legally wrong to do so? Must every condition be listed in the NRCoT or legislation? It certainly would be good to have it as such, but does it invalidate a procedure if it is not?