Why I believe Penalty Fares can be unfair

[jhcho21c]

This post is a rant from a student who received a short end of the stick on their recent journey. Avoid at will.

---

Allow me to put the situation in perspective.


On my recent visit back home, I unfortunately misplaced my railcard. Oblivious to this, I got on the train from Cambridge to Stratford with my discounted ticket costing £5.00. As luck had it, the inspectors came round, and I was unable to produce my railcard. As a result, a Penalty Fare of £71.60 was imposed for failure to provide supporting document. Since the incident, I have carried out an appeal, providing the supporting documents via scan, on the day of travel, which came back rejected after 10 days. Now, here are my issues with the system:


Firstly, I agree that there must exist a penalty to discourage rule breaking motives. I also agree that the said penalty should amount to a sum significantly greater than that of the discounted ticket to prevent gambling by those risk-loving individuals. The T&Cs for Greater Anglia states explicitly that the penalty imposed will be equal to double the price of an un-discounted journey. However, what they do not make clear is that this "journey" means the most expensive way possible to travel on the train at that given time. Taking my case as an example, my ticket was £5.00. This means my journey without railcard discount should cost £7.50. Therefore, a penalty of £15.00 will quadruple the cost of the journey, providing enough incentive to not abuse the system. However, the penalty fare imposed was based on the anytime any-day any-route ticket, costing £35.80, pushing the penalty fare up to a ludicrous £71.60. This ignores the fact that the ticket I purchased was for a Sunday, and imposes a penalty using "one size fits all" policy to reap in revenue for the train company. The lack of distinction between journeys costing a different order of magnitude is just one of many ways which the railways system in the UK uses to sustain itself from bankruptcy.


Secondly, it is clear from the railway policy that the motivation behind these penalties are indeed to raise further revenue from the honest ordinary customers, rather than to punish the wrongdoers. I say this due to the very nature of 16 - 25 railcard itself. The cost of the card is a mere £30 (£28 if one has basic competency with regards to using the internet) - an amount which is recoverable in a couple of journeys. There is very little sense from a student's perspective to not be in possession of one of these, whether via direct purchase, or via the Santander freebie, especially since the average annual savings with the railcard amounts to £161*. With this in mind, those who are unable to produce their 16 - 25 railcard upon inspection are significantly more likely to be honest but disorganised souls like myself, not immoral gamblers of the system. This reasoning should be evident for any vaguely educated individual, without the need of a degree in Economics. The fact that this disproportionate penalty fare is imposed on a group such as this clearly indicates that the purpose of the penalty fare is indeed revenue, and I personally find this astonishing to see in a developed and allegedly well-regulated economy such as the UK.


To further my point with regards to motive, here's a further issue. If the objective of the penalty fare was to punish the wrongdoers, then upon provision of the supporting document at a reasonable future date, the penalty fare should be removed or at the least reduced, given that the documentations in question are valid. However, this may not be so in the UK, as the revenue generated from the penalty fare are most likely already anticipated, accounted and incorporated into the railway budget in order to continue its inefficient operations^. From my perspective, the system should be targeting to eliminate those abusing the system, not to generate further revenue off the average customer, in order to sustain their unjustifiably expensive operation.


Granted my perspective will be skewed given that I was ordered to pay an extortionate penalty fare, however my points regarding the system still stands. Both the methodology and the fundamental reasoning behind penalties are corrupt. The railways industry in the UK should be looking to reform its operation for efficiency, not squeezing out extra revenues from the helpless to maintain a service which, in the long run, will inevitably fail.


Rant over. I envy those with perseverance to reach the end of the post.

*Source: http://www.railcard.co.uk/
^Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/06/uk-railway-judged-worse

 

[MassDiscussion]

Having had a similar experience, I'd rather pay the fine than be taken to court. And perhaps not make the same mistake again.

 

[Chapeltom]

This post is an rant from a student who received a short end of the stick on their recent journey. Avoid at will.

---

Allow me to put the situation in perspective.

On my recent visit back home, I unfortunately misplaced my railcard. Oblivious to this, I got on the train from Cambridge to Stratford with my discounted ticket costing £5.00. As luck had it, the inspectors came round, and I was unable to produce my railcard. As a result, a Penalty Fare of £71.60 was imposed for failure to provide supporting document. Since the incident, I have carried out an appeal, providing the supporting documents via scan, on the day of travel, which came back rejected after 10 days. Now, here are my issues with the system:


Firstly, I agree that there must exist a penalty to discourage rule breaking motives. I also agree that the said penalty should amount to a sum significantly greater than that of the discounted ticket to prevent gambling by those risk-loving individuals. The T&Cs for Greater Anglia states explicitly that the penalty imposed will be equal to double the price of an un-discounted journey. However, what they do not make clear is that this "journey" means the most expensive way possible to travel on the train at that given time. Taking my case as an example, my ticket was £5.00. This means my journey without railcard discount should cost £7.50. Therefore, a penalty of £15.00 will quadruple the cost of the journey, providing enough incentive to not abuse the system. However, the penalty fare imposed was based on the anytime any-day any-route ticket, costing £35.80, pushing the penalty fare up to a ludicrous £71.60. This ignores the fact that the ticket I purchased was for a Sunday, and imposes a penalty using "one size fits all" policy to reap in revenue for the train company. The lack of distinction between journeys costing a different order of magnitude is just one way the railway system in the UK uses to sustain itself from bankruptcy.


Secondly, it is clear from the railway policy that the motivation behind these penalties are indeed to raise further revenue from the honest ordinary customers, rather than to punish the wrongdoers. I say this due to the very nature of 16 - 25 railcard itself. The cost of the card is a mere £30 (£28 if one has basic competency with regards to using the internet) - an amount which is recoverable in a couple of journeys. There is very little sense from a student's perspective to not be in possession of one of these, whether via direct purchase, or via the Santander freebie, especially since the average annual savings with the railcard amounts to £161*. With this in mind, those who are unable to produce their 16 - 25 railcard upon inspection are significantly more likely to be honest but disorganised souls like myself, not immoral gamblers of the system. This reasoning should be evident for any vaguely educated individual, without the need of a degree in Economics. The fact that this disproportionate penalty fare is imposed on a group such as this clearly indicates that the purpose of the penalty fare is indeed revenue, and I personally find this astonishing to see in a developed and allegedly well-regulated economy such as the UK.


To further my point with regards to motive, here's a further issue. If the objective of the penalty fare was to punish the wrongdoers, then upon provision of the supporting document at a reasonable future date, the penalty fare should be removed or at the least reduced, given that the documentations in question are valid. However, this may not be so in the UK, as the revenue generated from the penalty fare is most likely already anticipated, accounted and incorporated into the railway budget in order to continue its inefficient operations^. From my perspective, the system should be targeting to eliminate those abusing the system, not to generate further revenue off the average customer, in order to sustain their unjustifiably expensive operation.


Granted my perspective will be skewed given that I was ordered to pay an extortionate penalty fare, however my points regarding the system still stands. Both the methodology and the fundamental reasoning behind penalties are corrupted. The railways industry in the UK should be looking to reform its operation for efficiency, not squeezing out extra revenues from the helpless to maintain a service which, in the long run, will inevitably fail.

Rant over. I envy those who has the perseverance to reach the end of the post.

*Source: http://www.railcard.co.uk/
^Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/06/uk-railway-judged-worse

Penalty fares are not there for those suspected of deliberate fare evasion, they are in place for those who make an honest mistake. The bye-laws and Regulation of Railways Act are in place for those who are suspected of committing an offence, anyone handed a penalty fare is not suspected of deliberately doing anything wrong. I'm not passing judgement on the fairness of penalty fares and how they are used, merely stating the facts.

 

[EM2]

This post is an rant from a student who received a short end of the stick on their recent journey. Avoid at will.

---

The T&Cs for Greater Anglia states explicitly that the penalty imposed will be equal to double the price of an un-discounted journey. However, what they do not make clear is that this "journey" means the most expensive way possible to travel on the train at that given time.

That's what un-discounted means.

The cost of the card is a mere £30 (£28 if one has basic competency with regards to using the internet) - an amount which is recoverable in a couple of journeys.

Not if you carry it. Then it's not recoverable at all.

To further my point with regards to motive, here's a further issue. If the objective of the penalty fare was to punish the wrongdoers, then upon provision of the supporting document at a reasonable future date, the penalty fare should be removed or at the least reduced, given that the documentations in question are valid.

In that case, you could 'pretend' to forget your railcard every time, escape a penalty on any occasion your ticket was not checked, and pay no penalty at all when it was checked because you sent it in afterwards. Where's the deterrent?

 

[DaleCooper]

Who told you that life was fair? Perhaps now you've got it off your chest you can relax and get on with your life.

Maybe it will cheer you up to know that I was relieved to get through your rant without spotting any glaring spelling, punctuation or grammatical errors although someone may prove me wrong. Anyway congratulations you've restored my faith in students' language abilities.

 

[furlong]

Penalty fares are not there for those suspected of deliberate fare evasion

But on the contrary, they are for such people. Go and read the parliamentary debates and the SRA's documentation.

they are in place for those who make an honest mistake.

I do wish people on this forum would stop using the confusing term "honest mistake" in this context.

Penalty fares offer an alternative for passengers who could otherwise have been prosecuted, an alternative which is generally seen as advantageous to both sides. There are many measures in place to protect the interests of "honest passengers". If you think people who forget their railcards are being unfairly treated as dishonest, then you should take this up with the DfT which now oversees the schemes.

 

[Clip]

The cost of the card is a mere £30 (£28 if one has basic competency with regards to using the internet) - an amount which is recoverable in a couple of journeys.

Id say you would save more money and avoid a penalty fare by having the competency of actually carrying your railcard.

 

[DaleCooper]

This thread has raised another question. Why do 16-25 Railcards have a photograph but Senior Railcards do not? Is it because us oldies are too ugly?

 

[Clip]

This thread has raised another question. Why do 16-25 Railcards have a photograph but Senior Railcards do not? Is it because us oldies are too ugly?

Generally yes

However the 16-25 can also be used by students out side that age group so a photocard is necessary

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Why do 16-25 Railcards have a photograph but Senior Railcards do not? Is it because us oldies are too ugly?

Perhaps we are deemed less likely to card share. Bus passes have a photo though.

 

[30907]

However, the penalty fare imposed was based on the anytime any-day any-route ticket, costing £35.80, pushing the penalty fare up to a ludicrous £71.60. This ignores the fact that the ticket I purchased was for a Sunday, and imposes a penalty using "one size fits all" policy to reap in revenue for the train company.

Unfortunately for you, walk - up single fares on that route, as on most others, are the same at any time of day.
However, I can't find a fare of £35.80 for Cambridge - Stratford. Is that worth querying?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Unfortunately for you, walk - up single fares on that route, as on most others, are the same at any time of day.
However, I can't find a fare of £35.80 for Cambridge - Stratford. Is that worth querying?

Are Penalty fare amounts based on £20 or twice the single fare to the next station the train calls at - whichever is greater PLUS the cost of the fare from the next station to the destination if the passenger continues their journey on the same train? Or some similar type of calculation?

 

[reb0118]

Are Penalty fare amounts based on £20 or twice the single fare to the next station the train calls at - whichever is greater.

That is my belief.

[T]he cost of the fare from the next station to the destination if the passenger [wishes to] continues their journey on the same train?

I believe that this is treated separately and a separate ticket should be issued.

 

[6Gman]

This post is an rant from a student who received a short end of the stick on their recent journey. Avoid at will.

---

Allow me to put the situation in perspective.

On my recent visit back home, I unfortunately misplaced my railcard. Oblivious to this, I got on the train from Cambridge to Stratford

Is it not reasonable, at the start of a journey, to check you have your documents with you?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's what un-discounted means.

Not if you carry it. Then it's not recoverable at all.

In that case, you could 'pretend' to forget your railcard every time, escape a penalty on any occasion your ticket was not checked, and pay no penalty at all when it was checked because you sent it in afterwards. Where's the deterrent?

Recognising that people forget things, wouldn't it be fairer if a Penalty Fare issued for forgetting a Railcard, season ticket etc, provided that ticket is a personal one with a photocard, was waived minus the standard admin fee, perhaps once a year only, on production of same at a ticket office?

FWIW I do think the "double Anytime" PFs are disproportionate on that kind of journey, particularly as their level is not, when issued on board, relevant to the intended journey but sheer luck of where the train stops next and when the guard came through, and as such would rather see them changed to the cost of the relevant walk-up fare plus a fixed penalty, perhaps of £40-£50 if paid promptly.

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

Is it not reasonable, at the start of a journey, to check you have your documents with you?

People make genuine mistakes. It's a mark of a customer-friendly company to find a way to handle that. With Railcards with photocards that are in date, the ability to prove it is held later and rescind the PF would seem to do that, if it were implemented.

Neil

 

[najaB]

Recognising that people forget things, wouldn't it be fairer if a Penalty Fare issued for forgetting a Railcard, season ticket etc, provided that ticket is a personal one with a photocard, was waived minus the standard admin fee, perhaps once a year only, on production of same at a ticket office?

That would be consistent with the way that some TOCs deal with forgotten season tickets.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Completely agree with Neil Williams, and can't believe some of the sanctimonious attitudes on this board. We are not all perfect. We all make mistakes at some stage in our lives. Sometimes a little forgiveness and a small penalty is a much better way forward than the disproportionate penalties sometimes sought.

Forget your railcard? Show it at the station within x days, pay an admin fee to cover the the time and trouble, don't do it again otherwise there will be a bigger fee to pay.

It's time for some proportionality.

 

[scott118]

It's part of the cardholders t&c's to carry it. Often overlooked if indeed, it is ever understood. I see no problem with the cost of the PF as the cardholder hasn't complied to the original T&C's, irrespective of whether they have forgot or not. No card or it's invalid, how can anyone complain as it is them themselves, who have broken the original contract, that they agreed to..

 

[EM2]

Forget your railcard? Show it at the station within x days, pay an admin fee to cover the the time and trouble, don't do it again otherwise there will be a bigger fee to pay.

Why not just charge the big penalty the first time, to deter people from doing it again? 'Once bitten, twice shy' and all that.

 

[Spamcan81]

I find it interesting that the OP's appeal was rejected. Last November I was travelling from Downham Market and of the two young women sitting opposite me, one had her railcard and the other had mislaid/forgotten it. She was charged a penalty fare but the RPI informed her that if she could produce evidence of holding a valid railcard then the penalty fare would be rescinded. Was he correct in saying this and if so, why was the OP's appeal rejected?

 

[DaleCooper]

Maybe the TOCs see like this:

"For £30 we give passengers the opportunity to save hundreds if not thousands of pounds a year and yet they can't even comply with simple T&Cs and we have to go to the effort of chasing them up for the penalty payment with all the additional administrative costs that entails."

 

[neilmc]

Maybe the TOCs see like this:

"For £30 we give passengers the opportunity to save hundreds if not thousands of pounds a year and yet they can't even comply with simple T&Cs and we have to go to the effort of chasing them up for the penalty payment with all the additional administrative costs that entails."

Or maybe they see it like this:

"We are forced into giving huge discounts for certain sections of the population so when they make a mistake we'll screw them for every penny we legally can. (Well, the kids at least, leave the oldies well alone or we'll have the Daily Mail on our backs)"

 

[DaleCooper]

Or maybe they see it like this:

"We are forced into giving huge discounts for certain sections of the population so when they make a mistake we'll screw them for every penny we legally can. (Well, the kids at least, leave the oldies well alone or we'll have the Daily Mail on our backs)"

If I forgot my Senior Railcard I would be subject to the same penalty as a young person.

 

[Bedpan]

I find it interesting that the OP's appeal was rejected. Last November I was travelling from Downham Market and of the two young women sitting opposite me, one had her railcard and the other had mislaid/forgotten it. She was charged a penalty fare but the RPI informed her that if she could produce evidence of holding a valid railcard then the penalty fare would be rescinded. Was he correct in saying this and if so, why was the OP's appeal rejected?

Same happened to my daughter when she was 16. She was £1 short on a fare (£2 with a railcard, £3 without, and she had left her railcard in the car when I took her to the station. Being told that the penalty fare would be rescinded if she appealed and sent proof of her card was just taking the proverbial .... , all that happened was that we incurred further time and expense in writing in. Having been unable to park on Easter Monday at a bank holiday rate a few days earlier, I simply took my business away from FCC for about 18 months - the only satisfaction I got was that the loss of revenue they suffered by us not using them was about 10 times the penalty fare that I had to pay for my daughter. And being able to have a celebratory drink when they lost their franchise.

We all make mistakes from time to time, I was supposed to take my passport to the Nationwide today, left it out and yet forgot it despite taking everything else I needed. I was going to say what Puffing Billy has, although perhaps pay the PF as it is now and then get your money back, less £10, when you produce your card.

 

[Llanigraham]

Or maybe they see it like this:
"We are forced into giving huge discounts for certain sections of the population so when they make a mistake we'll screw them for every penny we legally can. (Well, the kids at least, leave the oldies well alone or we'll have the Daily Mail on our backs)"

If I forgot my Senior Railcard I would be subject to the same penalty as a young person.

And the same if I forget my Adult Disabled Person's card!!

 

[RJ]

I find it interesting that the OP's appeal was rejected. Last November I was travelling from Downham Market and of the two young women sitting opposite me, one had her railcard and the other had mislaid/forgotten it. She was charged a penalty fare but the RPI informed her that if she could produce evidence of holding a valid railcard then the penalty fare would be rescinded. Was he correct in saying this and if so, why was the OP's appeal rejected?

Don't believe everything you hear. It's not unheard of for revenue staff to make up things like this to get someone to comply with them. What is actually likely to happen is that admin fees stack up whilst the appeal (which is not likely to be upheld) takes place. The lack of integrity on the railway's part is not something I approve of.

I've had similar lines fed to me and when I challenged them about issuing me with something they reckon would be successfully appealed, it often led to them backing down - or going through with it then inviting a whole heap of trouble on themselves. When I worked in revenue I was honest with people - I informed them of their right to appeal, but never encouraged people to do so.

 

[Spamcan81]

If I forgot my Senior Railcard I would be subject to the same penalty as a young person.

Demonstrating the advantage of buying a ticket at a booking office. No railcard, no discounted ticket.

 

[deltic]

Completely agree with Neil Williams, and can't believe some of the sanctimonious attitudes on this board. We are not all perfect. We all make mistakes at some stage in our lives. Sometimes a little forgiveness and a small penalty is a much better way forward than the disproportionate penalties sometimes sought.

Forget your railcard? Show it at the station within x days, pay an admin fee to cover the the time and trouble, don't do it again otherwise there will be a bigger fee to pay.

It's time for some proportionality.

hear hear

 

[Agent_c]

Completely agree with Neil Williams, and can't believe some of the sanctimonious attitudes on this board. We are not all perfect. We all make mistakes at some stage in our lives. Sometimes a little forgiveness and a small penalty is a much better way forward than the disproportionate penalties sometimes sought.

Forget your railcard? Show it at the station within x days, pay an admin fee to cover the the time and trouble, don't do it again otherwise there will be a bigger fee to pay.

It's time for some proportionality.

Makes sense, isn't that the rule that applies to driving without your license?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Makes sense, isn't that the rule that applies to driving without your license?

There is no offence of driving without being in actual possession of a licence. In practice you are unlikely to be asked to produce it unless involved in an accident or stopped for some unrelated reason, but if you are, it is sufficient to present it at a Police Station.

The more user friendly way of approaching those who travel without the relevant discount card would be to charge the missing third and refund it, perhaps subject to an administrative charge on production of an "in date" card. Yes, you would need to change the terms and conditions, and yes, you would have to put a start date on the discount card.