Why I believe Penalty Fares can be unfair

[timbo58]

I think the comparison of airlines+no passport was valid actually.

Whilst there would be no 'fine' after boarding as you would be prevented in 99.9% of cases from boarding you'd still be paying a penalty- the original airfare would be null & void.
This could be a very significant penalty, although you might find insurance to cover it (?).

Unfortunately this is one of those things in modern life where the dishonest have ploughed the furrow for all those that come after them IMHO.
Because proving someone has defrauded the railway is fairly difficult in many circumstances there are strict liability and seemingly 'harsh' penalties for all those found not adhering to T&Cs.

Unfair? Probably.
Likely to change? Not until there's a better way of enforcing honesty.

Perhaps there's an opportunity for some sort of insurance here?

 

[island]

We already have provisions in English law such that it isn't always the case that "it's in the T&Cs, so tough ****" - the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations recognises the imbalance in bargaining power between business and consumers and completely invalidates terms that are deemed "unfair".

This is quoted regularly, and is quite wrong and irrelevant. Prosecutions of passengers who choose to buy a Railcard and discounted tickets and later fail or refuse to present both together when travelling are not a matter of a consumer contract. They are a matter of law and the UTCCRs don't touch them.

 

[infobleep]

No one has answer my question of whether they think season ticket holders should be brought into line the same as all other rail card holders, as in you can't claim the costs back.

 

[Greenback]

In principle I would like railcard holders to be treated the same way as season ticket holders.

In practice, I think it's highly unlikely. To reduce the rights of season ticket holders wouldn't just be highly unlikely, it's never going to happen, regardless of whether you or I think it should. For clarity, perhaps I should say that I'm not in favour of it anyway, I'd rather see any equalisation happen by your original proposal.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No one has answer my question of whether they think season ticket holders should be brought into line the same as all other rail card holders, as in you can't claim the costs back.

That's because there's too much grey for half the posters in this thread. Rules is rules guv'nor. Never mind that if I forget my season ticket, but can prove I have one, I'll get my train fare back and/or a Penalty Fare cancelled.

FWIW my issue remains the fact that rich people who "forget" their railcard get a slap on the wrist but poor people- who cannot afford to cough up immediately- get summonsed to court. All railway settlements are time-limited, TOCs will not allow instalments, so the people who are least able to pay get fined (and actually fined) far more than their richer counterparts. Never mind that people using AP tickets and Railcards are more likely to be poor, which is why they're on such restrictive tickets in the first place. My previous professional experience of getting TOCs to accept instalments was that I'd have got more done banging my head against the wall for an hour.

None of that means that I think nobody should ever be fined or "fined", it's more that the current rules are completely back-to-front. The bloke who has a wad of fifties in his jeans, but was just trying it on, gets a slap on the wrist and the bloke who genuinely makes the mistake but has no cash gets a prosecution. And no, I'm not so naive to think that people wouldn't try and repay a quid a week if they could, but that's where professional debt advisers come in. It's good enough for banks dealing with debts in the tens of thousands.

 

[Llanigraham]

That's because there's too much grey for half the posters in this thread. Rules is rules guv'nor. Never mind that if I forget my season ticket, but can prove I have one, I'll get my train fare back and/or a Penalty Fare cancelled.

FWIW my issue remains the fact that rich people who "forget" their railcard get a slap on the wrist but poor people- who cannot afford to cough up immediately- get summonsed to court. All railway settlements are time-limited, TOCs will not allow instalments, so the people who are least able to pay get fined (and actually fined) far more than their richer counterparts. Never mind that people using AP tickets and Railcards are more likely to be poor, which is why they're on such restrictive tickets in the first place. My previous professional experience of getting TOCs to accept instalments was that I'd have got more done banging my head against the wall for an hour.

None of that means that I think nobody should ever be fined or "fined", it's more that the current rules are completely back-to-front. The bloke who has a wad of fifties in his jeans, but was just trying it on, gets a slap on the wrist and the bloke who genuinely makes the mistake but has no cash gets a prosecution. And no, I'm not so naive to think that people wouldn't try and repay a quid a week if they could, but that's where professional debt advisers come in. It's good enough for banks dealing with debts in the tens of thousands.

Oh do us a favour, and climb down off your political pedestal!!

It doesn't matter if the holder is rich or poor, the Terms and Conditions are the same, if you forget to carry your Card then you will be charged the full price for a ticket.

People, rich or poor, have to accept some responsibility for themselves and their behaviour, and if they can't do that then they have to accept some repercussions, in all aspects of their life.

Your forum name suits you!

 

[Bletchleyite]

It doesn't matter if the holder is rich or poor, the Terms and Conditions are the same, if you forget to carry your Card then you will be charged the full price for a ticket.

If you have that money on you. If you don't, as is more likely to be the case for poorer people, you might well get prosecuted or a large administrative settlement. Thus there is an active disadvantage for poorer people.

 

[Llanigraham]

If you have that money on you. If you don't, as is more likely to be the case for poorer people, you might well get prosecuted or a large administrative settlement. Thus there is an active disadvantage for poorer people.

Read my third paragraph!!

People, rich or poor, have to accept some responsibility for themselves and their behaviour, and if they can't do that then they have to accept some repercussions, in all aspects of their life.

 

[DaleCooper]

Oh do us a favour, and climb down off your political pedestal!!

It doesn't matter if the holder is rich or poor, the Terms and Conditions are the same, if you forget to carry your Card then you will be charged the full price for a ticket.

People, rich or poor, have to accept some responsibility for themselves and their behaviour, and if they can't do that then they have to accept some repercussions, in all aspects of their life.

Your forum name suits you!

That's an extreme and unnecessary reaction to some reasonable comments.

 

[sarahj]

Oh i dont know, the recent 'rich' person who had to pay that massive settlement and then lost his job, might be thinking that £126.40 is a bargain.

There are only so many times someone who has paid thousands for their ticket can claim a fare back when they forget their card, and when they do try and defraud, we do come down on them like a ton of bricks.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It doesn't matter if the holder is rich or poor, the Terms and Conditions are the same, if you forget to carry your Card then you will be charged the full price for a ticket.

...if you have the money to pay the full price of a ticket.

If you don't, you'll be written up for prosecution, and there will be additional fees added. As we've seen in the other thread, someone who didn't have £30 is now being asked for £120; if it goes to court, I'd expect that figure to double or even treble.

The rich bloke gets "fined" £30 for their mistake, the poor one gets "fined" £120. The "repercussions" are not equal.

Also, as an aside, cut out the personal abuse: if you can't debate without losing your temper, don't bother.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh i dont know, the recent 'rich' person who had to pay that massive settlement and then lost his job, might be thinking that £126.40 is a bargain.

That depends on how you look at that case.

The rich man had to pay a lot of money to SouthEastern Trains. But that money prevented the matter being taken to court, where the rich man might well have been sent to prison (even RoRA allows three months porridge).

£40,000 to stay out of prison doesn't look like such a bad deal after all.

 

[infobleep]

Read my third paragraph!!

People, rich or poor, have to accept some responsibility for themselves and their behaviour, and if they can't do that then they have to accept some repercussions, in all aspects of their life.

Perhaps everyone shouldn't be allowed to pay straight away.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People, rich or poor, have to accept some responsibility for themselves and their behaviour, and if they can't do that then they have to accept some repercussions, in all aspects of their life.

Indeed. But to me it is not fair that those repercussions should be actively regressive. They should at the very least be equal, and they in practice are not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps everyone shouldn't be allowed to pay straight away.

I don't think you should have the option to pay the Anytime fare if you pay it on the spot, but be prosecuted / hit with a very large administrative settlement if you cannot.

So either everyone should be prosecuted/get an administrative settlement, or everyone should be offered ample time to pay the Anytime fare, perhaps 7 days.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's an extreme and unnecessary reaction to some reasonable comments.

I do find it a shame that people on here sometimes do not simply debate the issue in hand (or ignore it if they dislike it that much), but instead resort to personal comments about things like usernames and individuals.

 

[EM2]

Oh do us a favour, and climb down off your political pedestal!!

It doesn't matter if the holder is rich or poor, the Terms and Conditions are the same, if you forget to carry your Card then you will be charged the full price for a ticket.

People, rich or poor, have to accept some responsibility for themselves and their behaviour, and if they can't do that then they have to accept some repercussions, in all aspects of their life.

Your forum name suits you!

Whilst I agree that the initial punishment is the same for all, it's how it continues that concerns me (as well as Arctic Troll and others).
As I understand it, without a railcard the holder is treated as having no ticket, and must therefore purchase an Anytime ticket for the journey taken.
If the person is unable to pay for this ticket at the time (for whatever reason), why does it immediately go to prosecution? Why is it not considered appropriate to issue a UPFN, because that is what it is, an unpaid fare?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I agree that the initial punishment is the same for all, it's how it continues that concerns me (as well as Arctic Troll and others).
As I understand it, without a railcard the holder is treated as having no ticket, and must therefore purchase an Anytime ticket for the journey taken.
If the person is unable to pay for this ticket at the time (for whatever reason), why does it immediately go to prosecution? Why is it not considered appropriate to issue a UPFN, because that is what it is, an unpaid fare?

It may, I suppose, be the good old "attitude test". But that said, some RPIs are hugely more "prosecution happy" than others, as are some TOCs.

 

[Antman]

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

So even though you have proven that you had a valid railcard to purchase that ticket the penalty fare still applies? Daylight robbery if you ask me!

 

[najaB]

So even though you have proven that you had a valid railcard to purchase that ticket the penalty fare still applies? Daylight robbery if you ask me!

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not (so apologies if you are not) but the requirement isn't to own a valid railcard, it is to show the railcard along with the ticket when requested during your journey.

 

[DaleCooper]

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not (so apologies if you are not) but the requirement isn't to own a valid railcard, it is to show the railcard along with the ticket when requested during your journey.

I suspect this may have been mentioned somewhere in the preceding 11 pages. Again apologies if the post was sarcastic.

 

[Antman]

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not (so apologies if you are not) but the requirement isn't to own a valid railcard, it is to show the railcard along with the ticket when requested during your journey.

Of course I am being serious, yes I am aware of the requirement but don't we all forget things? There is also a requirement to ensure you have a means of payment before filling car with petrol but I went back later and paid when I left my wallet at home without any additional charge being made.

I think anybody reasonable person would agree that a charge of over £70 is outrageous?

 

[najaB]

I think anybody reasonable person would agree that a charge of over £70 is outrageous?

Only if you think that £35.80 is half-outrageous. As has been stated up-thread, a Penalty Fare is twice the full fare due, it only seems excessive because the OP had such a heavily discounted ticket in the first place.

Edit: And, just in case you missed it in the discussion above, I and several others believe that passengers who find themselves in this situation should be given one (and one only) partial refund of the PF if they can produce the railcard in a reasonable time-frame (e.g. 10 days).

 

[cjmillsnun]

Of course I am being serious, yes I am aware of the requirement but don't we all forget things? There is also a requirement to ensure you have a means of payment before filling car with petrol but I went back later and paid when I left my wallet at home without any additional charge being made.

I think anybody reasonable person would agree that a charge of over £70 is outrageous?

The problem with forgetting your railcard is that you could buy a railcard discounted ticket, say you "forgot it", give a friend's name and address, and get them to email in a copy of their railcard. Bear in mind that IRCAS aren't the RPI and don't know what you look like.

You were lucky when you forgot your card when fuelling and they let you go home and get it.

The one time I did it, they wouldn't let me drive home. I had to walk home, wait for my wife to get home from work, get her to give me a lift back (I didn't fancy walking another 5 miles) so I could pay for my fuel and retrieve my car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The one time I did it, they wouldn't let me drive home. I had to walk home, wait for my wife to get home from work, get her to give me a lift back (I didn't fancy walking another 5 miles) so I could pay for my fuel and retrieve my car.

A nuisance indeed, but I bet you weren't charged double the price of the fuel with a minimum of £20, or prosecuted unless you did attempt to leave the premises?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem with forgetting your railcard is that you could buy a railcard discounted ticket, say you "forgot it", give a friend's name and address, and get them to email in a copy of their railcard.

This is why, like season tickets, you'd allow a very low number of instances of PF refunds for forgotten Railcards, such as once a year. Would you give your one refund away to a friend when you might need it? I wouldn't.

 

[Puffing Devil]

This is a debate that will never be resolved on this forum. We have two factions:

1) Rules is rules. If you don't stick to the complete letter of the law and abide the smallprint of your ticket, the NCoC and each TOC's own policy, then you're clearly in the wrong and must be penalised irrespective of your ability to pay here and now. You should spend your time reading and researching all aspects of rail travel and ticketing before daring to step on a train.

2) Proportionality. People do sometimes make mistakes and may not read or understand each small detail of the tickets/railcards they hold. They may make an honest mistake. The penalty should be realistic and proportional to the harm caused - which in many cases is nil, as people have the appropriate ticket, but have simply forgotten to bring part of that complete package on the journey.

The whole debate would make the basis of a great paper for a psychology or sociology journal. If I wasn't so busy, I would be writing it myself.

 

[Clip]

This is a debate that will never be resolved on this forum. We have two factions:

1) Rules is rules. If you don't stick to the complete letter of the law and abide the smallprint of your ticket, the NCoC and each TOC's own policy, then you're clearly in the wrong and must be penalised irrespective of your ability to pay here and now. You should spend your time reading and researching all aspects of rail travel and ticketing before daring to step on a train.

.

This is the second time that someone has posted this and I must ask Puffing Devil and the others that are you saying we should not follow rules and conditions when travelling on the railway now?

Amazing

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is the second time that someone has posted this and I must ask Puffing Devil and the others that are you saying we should not follow rules and conditions when travelling on the railway now?

No, I believe his second point relates to the views of myself and a few others, namely that some discretion needs to be shown - both in the rules and in their enforcement - for genuine cases of people making unwitting mistakes using what is a highly complex system, even if that results in a few more people getting away with fraud.

That is I believe not your opinion, nor that of a large number of others here, but it is a valid one. (Compare, for instance, "zero tolerance" Ryanair with the more accommodating full-fare airlines).

 

[Clip]

Ahh so we don't follow the rules we just have to bend them and twist them because someone was a bit silly.

Which then begs the question why do we bother having any rules at all.

Free travel for all - you are welcome.

 

[Oswyntail]

Ahh so we don't follow the rules we just have to bend them and twist them because someone was a bit silly.

Which then begs the question why do we bother having any rules at all.

Free travel for all - you are welcome.

Even the police are allowed to exercise discretion, and that has not led to a breakdown in civilisation. If you genuinely cannot see the difference between exercising discretion and your ridiculous last sentence, I suspect you should not be dealing with the public.

 

[DaleCooper]

I'm not sure if I remember correctly as this thread has got quite lengthy but I thought the argument was between "Rules are rules" and "Give leeway for genuine mistakes". The second viewpoint doesn't require discretion, which can lead to inconsistencies which just cause further problems, but clear rules which allow a lower penalty for a first genuine mistake or one genuine mistake per year depending how the rules are drafted.

So it would still be "Rules are rules" just different rules.

 

[sheff1]

This is the second time that someone has posted this and I must ask Puffing Devil and the others that are you saying we should not follow rules and conditions when travelling on the railway now?

Amazing

Some people are saying that. More people are saying that there might be scope for changing existing rules to make hem 'fairer'. The two things are not the same, but some of the 'Rules are rules' posters do not seem to understand the distinction and dismiss anyone suggesting changes by quoting existing rules rather than explaining why the suggested changes might not be a good idea.

As for those who think saying 'we don't live in country XXX' is a useful debating point when a practice from another country is put forward - well :roll:

Ahh so we don't follow the rules we just have to bend them and twist them because someone was a bit silly.

Which then begs the question why do we bother having any rules at all.

Free travel for all - you are welcome.

Now who is being 'amazing' ? Showing discretion at times ('bending rules' if you prefer) does not mean everyone travels free .

 

[AM9]

More people are saying that there might be scope for changing existing rules to make hem 'fairer'. The two things are not the same, but some of the 'Rules are rules' posters do not seem to understand the distinction and dismiss anyone suggesting changes by quoting existing rules rather than explaining why the suggested changes might not be a good idea.

I like that statement. Clearly the rules aren't perfect. They are a kludge to try and reduce fraudulent travel. In BR days, that was the main intent, - nowadays there's the profit motive so TOCs see them as a revenue stream to defray the costs of employing inspectors/RPOs etc. who are needed to catch the real fare criminals.
Taking a legal positivist's view, if the rules aren't working as they should, change them and as soon as possible. Don't keep bending/ignoring them as that is how they fall into disrepute and become arbitrary, (read unfair). The TOCs, ATOC and the DfT have created a complex web of intrigue as regards some of the rules, which only a few, (including some of those whose job it is to know) fully understand.
As far as railcards are concerned, maybe tickets should be imprinted with the railcard ID and staff can then access holder details and an online image of the holder (where applicable). It may not be absolutely necessary to carry the card then, similar to cars not now requiring tax discs.