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

[jthjth]

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 ==


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.

It’s entirely possible to create a railcard with a valid from date. I have bank cards with such a field.

 

[John Palmer]

I too have obtained a copy of the Chief Magistrate's judgment. Whilst I cannot see how objection could be raised to publication of what is, after all, a judicial decision on a matter of public interest, I'm grateful to @KirkstallOne for taking the courteous course of seeking permission for its publication.

In view of the frequency of references on this board to what has been taken to be a bar on prosecution for most ticketing offences where a penalty fare is appealed and remains uncancelled, the judgment is one calling for comment in a number of respects. May I suggest that, given its restricted focus when set against the broad-brush nature of the ORR review forming this thread's subject, a separate thread dedicated to the judgment and its implications would be appropriate?

 

[AlterEgo]

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

If it’s verified at purchase, sure, why not?

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.

Only as anti-customer as holding the railcard and being able to buy tickets but not be able to use them, because you age out or the railcard expires.

Once again, if railcards were a new thing, invented today, that would be literally how it would work - you’d verify the entitlement to discount at purchase. In fact that’s how it worked when everyone got their advance ticket bookings from the ticket office.

 

[enyoueffsea]

Maybe something GBR can solve but it’d be a lot easier to have a ‘register’ of offences and penalty fares.

The fact TOC prosecution teams do not share any information creates so much challenge for what is a proportionate response.

Your first “error” or offence? Penalty fare.
Your second? A higher and significant penalty fare.
Third? Prosecution.

Everyone knows what to expect and it’s consistently applied. Will ensure those committing individual errors are given a benefit of the doubt and the repeat offenders held to account.

 

[Benjwri]

If it’s verified at purchase, sure, why not?

A warning can just be displayed before any results will be shown. Sure people might click through it, but at that point it becomes the type of stupidity you just can’t cater for. It’s entirely on them.

Maybe something GBR can solve but it’d be a lot easier to have a ‘register’ of offences and penalty fares.

The fact TOC prosecution teams do not share any information creates so much challenge for what is a proportionate response.

Your first “error” or offence? Penalty fare.
Your second? A higher and significant penalty fare.
Third? Prosecution.

Everyone knows what to expect and it’s consistently applied. Will ensure those committing individual errors are given a benefit of the doubt and the repeat offenders held to account.

I agree this would be the ideal solution. Have some people sit down around the table and come up with appropriate penalties for different categories, some you get a warning/penalty, some prosecuted or sent for investigation on the first time. I suspect this hasn’t been done because of issues with data though.

 

[furlong]

Figure 5.1 compares numbers of prosecutions by TOC.

The chart doesn't match the relative numbers of TOCs people post about in this forum.

LNER top, Northern second. LNER rarely features here. Different approaches presumably somehow mean one company features regularly with people requesting assistance here but the other doesn't. Is there some other explanation, or is LNER doing things in a better way than Northern?

 

[Starmill]

Only as anti-customer as holding the railcard and being able to buy tickets but not be able to use them, because you age out or the railcard expires.

That's not anti customer in the slightest though. It's their own free choice to renew in that case. If you can't renew it because you aren't entitled any more you'd... already know that and not buy the discounted ticket? Also, you literally can't age out of a railcard other than a 16-17 Saver, you can continue to use it until expiry, so I'm not sure that aspect really comes into it.

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

In fact that’s how it worked when everyone got their advance ticket bookings from the ticket office.

It isn't and never has been. BR and other ticket offices after them were instructed to issue railcard tickets to customers who haven't renewed yet because they can't, or aren't yet eligible, and endorse them with conditions advised.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I too have obtained a copy of the Chief Magistrate's judgment. Whilst I cannot see how objection could be raised to publication of what is, after all, a judicial decision on a matter of public interest, I'm grateful to @KirkstallOne for taking the courteous course of seeking permission for its publication.

In view of the frequency of references on this board to what has been taken to be a bar on prosecution for most ticketing offences where a penalty fare is appealed and remains uncancelled, the judgment is one calling for comment in a number of respects. May I suggest that, given its restricted focus when set against the broad-brush nature of the ORR review forming this thread's subject, a separate thread dedicated to the judgment and its implications would be appropriate?

Agree, I was going to start a new thread with the upload but had pause for thought given the footer on the email I received it on.

I was told Magistrate’s rulings are only published when there is significant public interest, I am surprised this was not classified as such especially given the regulation in question has caused mass confusion amongst our good selves and the train operating companies. If the Chief Magistrate’s Office receives a significant number of requests for a copy I wonder if they will reconsider this decision.

Once I have an answer either way I will start the thread. Hopefully my summary has captured the essential points for now rather than betray the limits of my abilities in interpreting legalese.

 

[OneOfThe48]

Figure 5.1 compares numbers of prosecutions by TOC.

The chart doesn't match the relative numbers of TOCs people post about in this forum.

LNER top, Northern second. LNER rarely features here. Different approaches presumably somehow mean one company features regularly with people requesting assistance here but the other doesn't.

It’s weighted by passenger numbers, so you’ll have a lot of operators who have lower case rates per passenger but a lot more passengers than LNER which mean they are featured more.

It is interesting though the varying levels of charges and the mix of penalty fares, prosecutions, MG11s, unpaid penalty fare notices, excess fares etc they issue.

Though it’s debatable whether excess fares should come under the enforcement umbrella even if a customer who gets the opportunity on the train to excess their ticket on one TOC and reported for prosecution/ penalty fared on another.

 

[Starmill]

Maybe something GBR can solve but it’d be a lot easier to have a ‘register’ of offences and penalty fares.

The fact TOC prosecution teams do not share any information creates so much challenge for what is a proportionate response.

Your first “error” or offence? Penalty fare.
Your second? A higher and significant penalty fare.
Third? Prosecution.

Everyone knows what to expect and it’s consistently applied. Will ensure those committing individual errors are given a benefit of the doubt and the repeat offenders held to account.

Rather a lot of people have been making these suggestions of GBR for five years now. Loads of things were investigated by the Transition Team and have had their work essentialy abandoned when the GBR TT was abolished, the fares and commercial projects were about the only things that made it. A GBR-wide revenue protection policy would be a good step but I think unfortunately it's going to remain a nice idea only for the next several years.

 

[BurtonM]

Probably stating the obvious, but even a TVM can apply a railcard discount unchallenged (well, for the Railcards it'll apply anyway). I wonder if the 'you may' aspect of the Railcard terms is to facilitate automated vending of Railcard discounted tickets? Otherwise, any absolute requirement to possess a Railcard to buy a discounted ticket would require a mechanism where apps and TVMs would need to somehow check Railcard validity (costly to implement), or require all Railcard discounted tickets to be purchased from someone that can confirm possession of a valid Railcard. In the case of the latter, it'd create a catch-22 where it would be impossible to use a Railcard to travel from an unstaffed station with a working TVM...

 

[furlong]

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.

It falls under "abuse of process". The case can be brought before the court but the defence has to argue in essence that proceeding with it would bring our system of justice into disrepute. Primarily because the matter has already been resolved by way of a civil penalty (Penalty Fare) and our justice system doesn't grant two bites of the cherry - you can't decide to impose one punishment (Penalty Fare) and then, having done that, later decide you want to try to give a second worse one on top of it or instead of it (unless there was some new information not originally available to the train company concerned when it imposed the first penalty). Regulation 11 additionally firmly backs up that position once there's been an appeal potentially also cutting out some situations where there was "new information" (but I doubt it would cut out them all).

Anyway, that's all theory unless or until we see test cases.

 

[Sonic1234]

Contravene parking regulations, regardless of intent, and there is no criminal liability. The penalty can be as low as £25, with no requirement to pay parking fees evaded or any investigation into how often you've done it.

You could argue dumping a car for ages in a 1 hour bay is worse than fare evasion - it takes away limited space on a high street/shopping area. Very few trains are so busy that a paying customer can't board because a fare dodger is on board.

 

[furlong]

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.

Indeed, this was significant new information, acknowledging that this has been going on. In principle, anyone who accepted one of these agreements under false pretences could ask a court to reopen it hoping it'll be deemed unenforceable and void. (Similar behaviour by the Post Office got called out.) See also the many threads about WMR's current behaviour allegedly misrepresenting both the law and its own evidence in attempts to obtain money from victims under false pretences. Fortunately the standard of their writing is so poor that many recipients get suspicious it might be a scam and seek advice.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Once again, if railcards were a new thing, invented today, that would be literally how it would work - you’d verify the entitlement to discount at purchase

Not always, and not necessarily. Mrs Tyke is eligible for a Blue Light card and, when we recently used it at a IHG hotel, entitlement was only verified on check-in.

The current rules, as applied in practice, are perfectly fine: you can buy the tickets before holding the railcard but if something goes wrong it is on you.

Anything else would be very anti-customer, especially given that the advanced booking horizons on some TOCs mean you can buy the ticket many months before you travel. Those of us with intermittent rail travel don’t want a railcard for five months before we travel.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Indeed, this was significant new information, acknowledging that this has been going on. In principle, anyone who accepted one of these agreements under false pretences could ask a court to reopen it hoping it'll be deemed unenforceable and void. (Similar behaviour by the Post Office got called out.)

Agree although the report says they have not seen any correspondence in one of these cases.

However, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that the correspondence simply says, please could you pay us this money otherwise we may send further letters and make a county court claim for the sums owing.

Let’s hope when the other shoe drops (the MoJ report) there will be a route to hold these prosecutors to account.

 

[Benjwri]

Not always, and not necessarily. Mrs Tyke is eligible for a Blue Light card and, when we recently used it at a IHG hotel, entitlement was only verified on check-in.

The current rules, as applied in practice, are perfectly fine: you can buy the tickets before holding the railcard but if something goes wrong it is on you.

Anything else would be very anti-customer, especially given that the advanced booking horizons on some TOCs mean you can buy the ticket many months before you travel. Those of us with intermittent rail travel don’t want a railcard for five months before we travel.

Also worth remembering one rule which attempts to help customers can actually harm them. Especially if you apply it to TVMs. Think about having to verify your railcard every time you use a tvm...

 

[furlong]

On the matter of publication of the SE judgement - I think there is clear public interest now as the ORR report refers to it and I suspect its summary might be deemed misleading.

It needs to be published in full now so that people can decide for themselves the extent to which the ORR has or has not represented any subtleties of the judgement.

 

[KirkstallOne]

It needs to be published in full now so that people can decide for themselves the extent to which the ORR has or has not represented any subtleties of the judgement.

I don’t wish to derail the thread but it needs to be published now so we can all marvel at the incredible display of sophistry. Was very similar to Northern’s original skeleton argument that they must have pulled out of the coffin.

 

[Krokodil]

However there are loads of examples of other situations resolved inconsistently and as I have mentioned on numerous occasions one persons "discretion" is another persons "inconsistency". Discretion and consistency are mutually exclusive.

But then "proportionality" doesn't sit comfortably with consistency either. Someone whose railcard expired yesterday is just as guilty of an offence as someone whose railcard expired three years ago. Yet the proportionate response would be to show leniency to the former ("get that renewed before I come back" or similar).

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

You would need the British public to take such things seriously though. BoatyMcBoatface, need I say more?

 

[AvidTrainGuy]

You would need the British public to take such things seriously though. BoatyMcBoatface, need I say more?

They totally should've gone with that name, by the way.

 

[Starmill]

But then "proportionality" doesn't sit comfortably with consistency either. Someone whose railcard expired yesterday is just as guilty of an offence as someone whose railcard expired three years ago. Yet the proportionate response would be to show leniency to the former ("get that renewed before I come back" or similar).

I guess the issue with the consistency is that the option to renew on the spot is the one that the vast majority of train conductors will be happy to allow as long as the customer is polite about the problem and willing to pay for the renewal while onboard the same train.

The majority of revenue protection staff would either charge a Penalty Fare or submit a report for prosecution for this, as per their training, even if the customer did renew their railcard while still on the train. There are loads of other parallels. Formalising the renewal on the spot option would be a way around that, although clearly you couldn't let that be advertised in advance.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Let’s hope when the other shoe drops (the MoJ report) there will be a route to hold these prosecutors to account.

Sadly I don’t think there will be. They’re not solicitors so the SRA doesn’t cover them and, in any event, the SRA are generally about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

I don’t even know if I blame the individual prosecutors. The Advanced Certificate in Investigative Practice qualification that both the TOC managers and I hold is, to be quite frank, an entry level qualification but the TOCs seem to see it as the opposite. The issues are systemic and go far beyond prosecutors who may be deceitful or may be merely incompetent.

As I’ve long said, I’d simply abolish the right to bring a private prosecution. It would cut so much hassle out, not just with the railways but with agencies such as TV Licensing too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess the issue with the consistency is that the option to renew on the spot is the one that the vast majority of train conductors will be happy to allow as long as the customer is polite about the problem and willing to pay for the renewal while onboard the same train.

This could all be avoided if digital Railcards were paid by direct debit and automatically renewed. You might get the odd one whose payment bounces, but it would solve most of the issues without enforcing anything.

 

[Adam Williams]

This could all be avoided if digital Railcards were paid by direct debit and automatically renewed. You might get the odd one whose payment bounces, but it would solve most of the issues without enforcing anything.

The rail industry/RDG, I'm sure, will eventually catch up with independent retailers who have been offering this since day 1 of retailing railcards.

 

[MatthewHutton]

This could all be avoided if digital Railcards were paid by direct debit and automatically renewed. You might get the odd one whose payment bounces, but it would solve most of the issues without enforcing anything.

No reason the paper ones cannot do direct debit too. I mean everything else does.

And probably not the worst thing to write a physical letter to people when their 26-30 railcard expires.

You could even raise the cost without direct debit to £45 or something.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Sadly I don’t think there will be. They’re not solicitors so the SRA doesn’t cover them and, in any event, the SRA are generally about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

I don’t even know if I blame the individual prosecutors. The Advanced Certificate in Investigative Practice qualification that both the TOC managers and I hold is, to be quite frank, an entry level qualification but the TOCs seem to see it as the opposite. The issues are systemic and go far beyond prosecutors who may be deceitful or may be merely incompetent.

As I’ve long said, I’d simply abolish the right to bring a private prosecution. It would cut so much hassle out, not just with the railways but with agencies such as TV Licensing too.

Curious as to why you are convinced meaningful change won’t be recommended. I am sure it won’t be retrospective but a mandatory code of practice and corresponding regulator or equivalent seems to be a given.

My issue was that no matter how badly the prosecutors were behaving there was absolutely no route to have your complaint looked at beyond having your day in court. That really was a chocolate teapot because either the prosecutor withdraws the case so they don’t have to to justify their actions, or you win your case but that has no bearing on the 1000s of other cases of a similar nature. Meanwhile you are effectively thousands of pounds out of pocket given the work it involves, whilst shouldering all the risk of it going badly and ending up with costs and a criminal record. The alternative is paying them a much lower sum of money to go away. Only a stubborn fool would choose the route I took.

I occasionally read SRA hearings and they strike me as incredibly strict, many strike offs for what would be minor disciplinary offences in many other professions. Maybe I am just hopelessly naive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The rail industry/RDG, I'm sure, will eventually catch up with independent retailers who have been offering this since day 1 of retailing railcards.

The trouble I think is that the industry is financially incentivised to make things awkward then enforce. Those settlements must add a fair bit to the bottom line just because of the typical forgetful student.

I've been that forgetful student, fortunately it was Manchester Piccadilly booking office that noticed it and I renewed there and then, and nothing was done about the month or so worth of journeys I made with it out of date before it was noticed. Suspect nowadays that same thing would have cost me upwards of £300.

 

[MatthewHutton]

The trouble I think is that the industry is financially incentivised to make things awkward then enforce. Those settlements must add a fair bit to the bottom line just because of the typical forgetful student.

I've been that forgetful student, fortunately it was Manchester Piccadilly booking office that noticed it and I renewed there and then, and nothing was done about the month or so worth of journeys I made with it out of date before it was noticed. Suspect nowadays that same thing would have cost me upwards of £300.

They would gain revenue from people whose railcard expires and they travel anyway as they often don’t check railcards or who simply don’t immediately renew as they aren’t using the train though.

So probably overall they would do probably do better with direct debit - or certainly break even.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Curious as to why you are convinced meaningful change won’t be recommended. I am sure it won’t be retrospective but a mandatory code of practice and corresponding regulator or equivalent seems to be a given.

My issue was that no matter how badly the prosecutors were behaving there was absolutely no route to have your complaint looked at beyond having your day in court. That really was a chocolate teapot because either the prosecutor withdraws the case so they don’t have to to justify their actions, or you win your case but that has no bearing on the 1000s of other cases of a similar nature. Meanwhile you are effectively thousands of pounds out of pocket given the work it involves, whilst shouldering all the risk of it going badly and ending up with costs and a criminal record. The alternative is paying them a much lower sum of money to go away. Only a stubborn fool would choose the route I took.

I occasionally read SRA hearings and they strike me as incredibly strict, many strike offs for what would be minor disciplinary offences in many other professions. Maybe I am just hopelessly naive.

And to add, I am literally hundreds of pounds out of pocket. Train fares to London multiple times, trips to provincial courts, fees to obtain court transcripts etc. Luckily I am my own boss but I doubt an employer would be impressed at me gallivanting around the country over a £20 penalty.