Discussion about "Train ticket enforcement must be fair and proportionate, watchdog warns"

[AlterEgo]

In mid-2025? Really? Any source for that? Not at York, it isn't! Maybe in parts of the country which haven't embraced Digital ticketing in quote the same way?

It may well be *revenue* if it’s accounting for season tickets, many of which are still sold at a station and many of which have a high value. But it wouldn’t be 15% of transactions.

 

[Titfield]

Impressive that they like TfL. Presumably the certainty of going to court (with a clear policy to do so ) is preferred to the uncertainty of out of court settlements.

 

[Kite159]

There is a mistake that is a direct result of technology combining with stricter policies concerning onboard sales by TOCs. That is where passengers buy online after boarding a train. We see many who thought they were doing the right thing, then being upset when they get hit with a Penalty Fare (even though there is real doubt about the validity of that) or a report for potential prosecution. One area that could be addressed is the potential for the value of a ticket already bought to be subtracted from new fares demanded in cases where intent to cheat cannot can be reasonably deduced. That would address the general public's idea of "fairness" when confronted with the consequences of a mistake. Ignoring payments already made has a random element to it that should not be tolerated.

The question is where do you draw the line between someone who purchases after departure but is a reasonable length of time before getting checked (so there was no doubt they weren't trying to avoid the fare) & someone who only purchases when they see a member of staff checking tickets (where it would be likely they wouldn't have purchased if not checked).

 

[SuspectUsual]

Impressive that they like TfL. Presumably the certainty of going to court (with a clear policy to do so ) is preferred to the uncertainty of out of court settlements.

Yes, but the ticketing on TfL is a zillion times less complicated than elsewhere on the network, so "genuine errors" are far less common. For everyone else, the guidelines and guardrails about what should be a penalty fare rather than a prosecution become even more important

 

[Haywain]

Presumably the certainty of going to court (with a clear policy to do so ) is preferred to the uncertainty of out of court settlements.

Certainty? Unless you employ a solicitor. I guess that they read the policy and didn't look at the actual cases.

 

[Titfield]

Certainty? Unless you employ a solicitor. I guess that they read the policy and didn't look at the actual cases.

Yes my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek.

A lot of the problems could be solved relatively simply. Based on what we see on here solving the railcard expiry / holding issue represents a very significant % of issues. Making far more clearer that paying on board is not acceptable (except in very limited circumstances) is another big chunk.

The issues of shortfaring, doughnutting, altering railcard expiry dates are very obviously deliberate attempts at fare evasion and should be treated as such.

In TfL Land using someone else's Freedom pass (pr similar child pass) is obviously a deliberate attempt at fare evasion.

 

[MatthewHutton]

It may well be *revenue* if it’s accounting for season tickets, many of which are still sold at a station and many of which have a high value. But it wouldn’t be 15% of transactions.

I assume transactions will be similar to the share it was in 2022.

Don’t forget the people who use the ticket offices like the elderly were probably a lower share of travellers then due to Covid.

 

[fandroid]

The question is where do you draw the line between someone who purchases after departure but is a reasonable length of time before getting checked (so there was no doubt they were trying to avoid the fare) & someone who only purchases when they see a member of staff checking tickets (where it would be likely they wouldn't have purchased if not checked).

My point really concerned the uninformed but well-intentioned. The railway has introduced this facility where anyone with a smartphone can buy a ticket anywhere, including on board a moving train. The railway needs to realise what that implies, and not just rely on the old-fashioned byelaw concept and monotonously repetitive (and mostly blanked out) automated announcements on trains. It's really their problem to solve. It's not as if the railway too doesn't benefit from this incredibly flexible ticket buying system.

 

[Haywain]

Don’t forget the people who use the ticket offices like the elderly were probably a lower share of travellers then due to Covid.

Why, do people become incapable of using the internet or apps as they get older?

 

[Titfield]

Why, do people become incapable of using the internet or apps as they get older?

Because their confidence diminishes and their fear of making a mistake or being scammed grows.

EDIT

Proof of being taken advantage of is mentioned regularly on this forum. The perpetrator Trainline.

 

[Haywain]

Proof of being taken advantage of is mentioned regularly on this forum. The perpetrator Trainline.

Which is nothing to do with old age.

 

[Titfield]

Which is nothing to do with old age.

True but it is the fear of this type of being taken advantage of that makes older people seek reassurance.

Daytime TV is full of stories of older people being scammed.

Younger people are far more resilient to the knocks of life.

 

[Haywain]

True but it is the fear of this type of being taken advantage of that makes older people seek reassurance.

That sentence might well be true if you drop the word older.

Daytime TV is full of stories of older people being scammed.

Younger people getting scammed just isn't such a good story. Scammer prey on anybody willing to listen.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Why, do people become incapable of using the internet or apps as they get older?

The people who grew up with the internet are still only in their 40s. Lots of people like to do things like they always have.

There hasn’t been much “progress” on getting people to use digital ticketing in the last decade.

Also being able to talk to an actual person about what ticket to buy has value as well for a lot of people. Especially occasional users.

 

[Haywain]

The people who grew up with the internet are still only in their 40s.

So all those people in their 60s, 70s and 80s using smartphones and laptops are a figment of the imagination? PCs, and the internet, have been around for over 30 years, and it wasn't barred to those in the 30s, 40s and 50s just because they were already grown up.

Lots of people like to do things like they always have.

And lots of people adapt and change.

 

[WesternLancer]

Yes - they consider TfL to be the good guys. The following is from the report:

A couple of times it describes

Does anyone know if that is true? Isn't it just a private prosecutor?

So a clear policy that is easy to understand and implement uniformly (but possibly increased chances of getting round it if you spend a whack paying for a solicitor to advocate for you) based on a service with a much simpler ticketing system that inevitably means it much more tricky for the passenger to make an 'honest mistake' on.

 

[MatthewHutton]

And lots of people adapt and change

Sure. But the people who did that did it in the early 2010s at the latest. There hasn’t been much change since then.

 

[swt_passenger]

The question is where do you draw the line between someone who purchases after departure but is a reasonable length of time before getting checked (so there was no doubt they were trying to avoid the fare) & someone who only purchases when they see a member of staff checking tickets (where it would be likely they wouldn't have purchased if not checked).

I don’t think you’ve written, (bit in bold), quite what you intended it to mean, did you not mean something like “purchase a short time after boarding and well before being checked” allows for the assumption they were probably not trying to avoid the fare?

 

[KirkstallOne]

My impression is TfL are legally watertight, they have a clear policy and haven’t been prosecuting people unlawfully. Do we see the sort of honest mistakes ending in prosecution that we see with other TOCs? My impression was vastly fewer due to the difficulty of making an honest mistake on most of their network.

Tfl have also been a public / relevant prosecutor for longer and uniquely are able to issue requisitions.

 

[Kite159]

I don’t think you’ve written, (bit in bold), quite what you intended it to mean, did you not mean something like “purchase a short time after boarding and well before being checked” allows for the assumption they were probably not trying to avoid the fare?

Yep, I used the wrong word, the sort who will buy just after boarding when the guard is at the opposite end of the train or before revenue board (in the case of DOO services).

Rather than the sort who will only buy when they see someone checking.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The key aspect for me is the” evidential test” and the “public interest test”, both of which the TOCs are not legally bound by but should, as private prosecutors, give due regard to. Many of the TOC prosecution staff hold the same qualification in investigative practice that I hold; in that qualification, the fact that using the these tests is best practice was drummed into me.

TOCs shouldn’t be threatening prosecution unless there’s both strong evidence and a public interest in prosecuting. What is interesting is that some TOCs have assessed the evidence and “offered” settlements to people where the evidence isn’t there. That, in my view, is deceitful.

 

[Sonic1234]

And lots of people adapt and change.

Smart ticketing is like any new method, you have the early adopters (those using print at home tickets back in the late 2000s), then it grows in popularity and now it's mature. Most are using e-tickets, but the portion that isn't is unlikely to change of their own choice. They know about them, know the benefits and disadvantages, and have decided they don't want to use them while they have the option not to. Or they can't, because their ticket has TfL validity. Or because GTR has messed around with the settings.

 

[PeterC]

So all those people in their 60s, 70s and 80s using smartphones and laptops are a figment of the imagination? PCs, and the internet, have been around for over 30 years, and it wasn't barred to those in the 30s, 40s and 50s just because they were already grown up.

That explains a lot. As a pensioner I must be staring at a blank phone and this whole site and the people who post are figments of my imagination.

 

[KirkstallOne]

A striking inclusion:



Anyone have any idea of the details of this ruling?

I have a copy of this ruling, I will publish it if I get permission to do so but I can summarise.

The case was brought by SE trains. The ruling states that the prosecutions may be brought, and if the defendants wish to rely on a regulation 11 defence it is for them to raise this. If they don’t do so, there is nothing for the court to consider. The ruling doesn’t say whether or not such a defence would be successful since it was not asked by the defence to do so.

 

[AvidTrainGuy]

It's almost as if they have been reading this forum

Train companies will never comply with this, at least not fully. Absolutely no chance; who is going to make them?

There is no organisation or individual that has the understanding of the scale of what's going on, and understanding of the issues, and both the power and desire to do anything about it.

This is true of literally any issue ever conceived of. The people who understand the problems are never in a position to do anything about it, and the people who are just don't care.

Oh how I wish the Switzerland way of doing things was brought here. They actually ask their people what they want on the regular.

 

[dodecahedron67]

A big thing as well is how trained up certain TOC staff are

For example at TPE guards cannot Penalty Fare anyone, or even issue a UFN (Unpaid Fares Notice). Only revenue protection can do these. But we can report them for prosecution, and after 1y competency as a guard, we can directly issue a TIR (Travel Irregularity Report) to them, without having to go "via the back office"

Contrast that to LNER, where TMs can issue UFNs, or Northern, where guards can PF people - to my knowledge at least

This is a big problem IMO as it means there will always be different outcomes - if someone comes across a TPE guard they'll probably just get sold a new ticket, but if they came across a TPE RPO or they were doing the exact same journey on a Northern service (York - Leeds fx), they'd probably get penalty fared. If they made the same journey on LNER (York - Newcastle fx), they would probably get a UFN. Three different possible outcomes all for the same "crime" of not having a valid ticket, all with varying severities and impacts - £20 for a new ticket, £50/100 PF + £20 new ticket, or reported for prosecution (potentially offered a £150+ settlement) and given a criminal record...

 

[Tetchytyke]

The case was brought by SE trains. The ruling states that the prosecutions may be brought, and if the defendants wish to rely on a regulation 11 defence it is for them to raise this. If they don’t do so, there is nothing for the court to consider. The ruling doesn’t say whether or not such a defence would be successful since it was not asked by the defence to do so.

That’s an “interesting” interpretation of the law!

It isn’t a defence, it is a prosecution bar. I don’t see how the regulation in question can be interpreted any other way.

 

[KirkstallOne]

That’s an “interesting” interpretation of the law!

It isn’t a defence, it is a prosecution bar. I don’t see how the regulation in question can be interpreted any other way.

Unfortunately it seems the first person to rely on this is going to have to face off with a KC!

 

[swt_passenger]

It would, and much as I like to bang the drum about railcard reform I do recognise this and think the latter bolded portion should not be a requirement.

So are you effectively saying it should be ok if the railcard expires between ticket purchase and ticket use? I’m confused…

 

[Starmill]

A big thing as well is how trained up certain TOC staff are

For example at TPE guards cannot Penalty Fare anyone, or even issue a UFN (Unpaid Fares Notice). Only revenue protection can do these. But we can report them for prosecution, and after 1y competency as a guard, we can directly issue a TIR (Travel Irregularity Report) to them, without having to go "via the back office"

Contrast that to LNER, where TMs can issue UFNs, or Northern, where guards can PF people - to my knowledge at least

This is a big problem IMO as it means there will always be different outcomes - if someone comes across a TPE guard they'll probably just get sold a new ticket, but if they came across a TPE RPO or they were doing the exact same journey on a Northern service (York - Leeds fx), they'd probably get penalty fared. If they made the same journey on LNER (York - Newcastle fx), they would probably get a UFN. Three different possible outcomes all for the same "crime" of not having a valid ticket, all with varying severities and impacts - £20 for a new ticket, £50/100 PF + £20 new ticket, or reported for prosecution (potentially offered a £150+ settlement) and given a criminal record...

Very few people with the role of a guard can issue Penalty Fares. Sometimes ticket office or station staff can but even that isn't very common. Southeastern's onboard manager grade used to be able to issue Penalty Fares, and Southern's can but I don't know for certain if this is current. It's also quite pointless because these staff can't leave their train, and at least on Southeastern the train wouldn't be allowed to continue without them anyway. So in reality the person can just walk away and leave the train at the next station, something regulars would be well aware of. Revenue protection staff would leave the train with the customer if necessary to finish issuing the penalty fare. Finally, the old regulations said it was bad practice to allow the only member of staff on the train to be an authorised collector for PF purposes. So they didn't become authorised collectors and this has stuck. Chiltern used to have a number of these multi-skilled roles, but it seems there's been some opposition to the idea of safety critical onboard staff who are also revenue protection from the unions. In any case they also cut back on safety critical onboard staff a few years ago with the withdrawal of the 'bubble cars'. I'm not aware of any Northern conductors who are authorised collectors but don't exclude the possibility some are. If you're promoted into a conductor role you may be permitted to keep it, I don't know.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2025 ==

So are you effectively saying it should be ok if the railcard expires between ticket purchase and ticket use? I’m confused…

Yes I also don't follow. Is it really sensible or reasonable to bar a customer who's 59 from purchasing an Advance with a Senior Railcard two months out, providing the customer qualifies for and purchases a Senior Railcard by the journey date? As far as I'm aware this has never previously been the case. Any attempt to invent this new restriction would be very anti customer.