Why do some Penalty Fares TOCs prefer prosecutions?

[Bletchleyite]

I think this deserves a speculative thread in its own right.

It is very symbolic of our culture, and not in a good way.

The thing I don't wholly get is why prosecutions are used to get settlements when the Penalty Fares system is intended for precisely this sort of thing, and was increased recently because £20 was no longer much of a deterrent.

Has the sum not kept up with what the TOCs see as covering their costs perhaps? The favoured sum to extort is £100, up from £80 when they first started doing this, whereas a promptly paid PF is £50.

Or do they dislike having a formal appeals process? (Yes, Court is a formal appeals process, but it's such a big thing in most peoples' eyes that they won't consider it one).

Or is it because PFs can't be issued retrospectively based on an irregularity report so will cause more staff abuse when issued on the spot?

Or is it because people can often get off on a technicality, e.g. because they've made a mess of the signage?

Either way, it's not good, and my view remains that the TOCs should lose the right to prosecute simple ticketing matters (i.e. ones that wouldn't be viable as a fraud charge) in favour of the use of Penalty Fares which are designed for simple ticketing issues e.g. no ticket held or wrong ticket accidentally purchased.

Yet some other TOCs seem to prefer PFs even in cases where there's actual fraud (e.g. deliberate short faring), e.g. WMT seem to almost always use Penalty Fares for any ticketing issue discovered on the spot.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It's probably more the retrospective issuing of of them which makes it difficult at the moment.

I do think that if a report has been made to a TOC because of what is initially believed to be intentional or serious forms of avoidance/evasion of fares, it is right that the passenger has to additionally pay a contribution to the costs of that process, especially as it's the taxpayer on the hook in most cases - which probably is an amount more than a Penalty Fare.

I think it would be sensible to introduce an actual Fixed Penalty Notice for most Byelaw offences. I'd use the Police Penalty Notice for Disorder tariff, which is roughly £80 plus £5 surcharge. If not paid, increases by 50% and goes to court for enforcement as if it were a fine.

Payment of a penalty notice does not require an admission of guilt and will not result in a criminal record.

I'd simply not offer a penalty notice to anyone committing a Regulation of Railways Act offence for intentional fare evasion, and always prosecute, like TfL.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do think that if a report has been made to a TOC because of what is initially believed to be intentional or serious forms of avoidance/evasion of fares, it is right that the passenger has to additionally pay a contribution to the costs of that process, especially as it's the taxpayer on the hook in most cases - which probably is an amount more than a Penalty Fare.

I think it would be sensible to introduce an actual Fixed Penalty Notice for most Byelaw offences. I'd use the Police Penalty Notice for Disorder tariff, which is roughly £80 plus £5 surcharge. If not paid, increases by 50% and goes to court for enforcement as if it were a fine.

So a beefing up of PFs to a higher amount and statutory enforcement? I could go with that. I can also see sense in there being an easier way to deal with Byelaw offences like the playing of music out loud to someone's annoyance or feet on seats, and Merseyrail have called for that.

I don't see sense in having a PF *and* that though. People who are genuinely believed to have made an honest mistake should just be charged an excess/single fare and be told not to do it again, with their details recorded so they aren't seen as the mistake being as genuine if it's done more than once.

I wonder if the issue is mostly (given that a lot of these Northern settlements are for things discovered in person) that the increase in the PF to £50 wasn't actually enough to deal with the costs or provide adequate deterrent, and if it was £100, increasing to £150 if not paid promptly, Northern etc may use it more - but that doesn't explain why WMT mostly use PFs anyway.

 

[30907]

My impression is that the TIR route is being used to enable TOCs to investigate ticketing history, which wouldn't/shouldn't be possible via a PF.

The cases we mostly see (from memory) are related to railcards and to short ticketing, and IMO those are reasonable grounds for investigating further/ requesting evidence of railcards.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I suppose it simplifies and quickens it a bit for the guard.

Previous system - encounter problem, try and decide whether it’s a PF or more serious, do the relevant process, issue receipt

This system - encounter problem, get info and issue TIR, move on

And if it’s quicker, they’d doubtless think the guard could get to more potential fare evaders…..

 

[Bletchleyite]

So we're basically up to:

1. PFs should be able to be issued retrospectively off the back of a TIR (using which other things like persistent, wilful fraud could be investigated);
2. The PF amount is too low to cover TOC costs and should be £80 or £100 as the base.

I think?