Why I believe Penalty Fares can be unfair

[Bletchleyite]

The long term solution will in my view be the Railcard being either an online account that produces print-at-home and/or mobile tickets, or an ITSO smartcard where the tickets cannot be issued in paper form, only on the card. This will mean no Railcard = no ticket, and thus people will be stopped at barriers (increasingly prevalent) in the way they aren't now.

That is a very passenger friendly aspect of barriers and one reason I quite like them - they prevent most instances of erroneous ticketless travel before it goes far enough to need a discussion surrounding PFs and prosecution.

 

[Clip]

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.

Yes and the railway does allow discretion in other parts of the railway but not where in penalty fare issues - which this thread is about - if you were observant you would have realised this.

Well thanks for your assessment on me just from my views on this forum - which are actually quite correct but because you don't agree with me then you think I shouldn't be dealing with the public whilst trying to protect my businesses revenue.

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

Well quite it does - just on that other thread someone even asked why they don't do 'pay later' system which was rightly shot down as being told that everyone would do this therefore every travels for free.


Not once have ANY of you agreed with most of us in that personal responsibility must come first. What you want is the railway to bend over backwards.

Lets face it its been a few times now where I have been accused of being anti passenger by a few people on here and some who should really know better however you base that on nothing apart from my view that a passenger has a responsibility as well as the railway does. However you all jump up and down at the railway when it gets something wrong yet when a passenger does then again the railway must do its bit to help them. But yet you don't advocate that do you? No. And it shows from your posts.

Anyway I am sick of making the same point again and again on here to you lot. If you want to change it go do something better than bitching about it on here. MP's Passenger focus the lot. Youll probably get nowhere but at least you can feel warm and smug inside knowing you at least tried.

 

[sheff1]

Not once have ANY of you agreed with most of us in that personal responsibility must come first. What you want is the railway to bend over backwards.

And there was me thinking I had agreed in post #150. No question of wanting anyone to 'bend over backwards'.

Anyway I am sick of making the same point again and again on here to you lot.

This is a forum for willing participants. There is no need to post (or even read) if you find the subject matter unpalatable.

 

[Oswyntail]

Yes and the railway does allow discretion in other parts of the railway but not where in penalty fare issues

Really? I would never have guessed. But can you explain a) why this aspect has to be so strictly applied (even why the rules say that, if that is the case) when most experienced front line officials can (if willing) tell a chancer from a genuine case and b) how the use of discretion in this area could lead to free travel for all.

which this thread is about - if you were observant you would have realised this.....

Thank you for pointing this out. As I am obviously so incapable, I am truly grateful for your patronising sarcasm that adds nothing, but confirms my opinion.

 

[anme]

What is the famous "attitude test", if not applying discretion?

 

[infobleep]

Yes and the railway does allow discretion in other parts of the railway but not where in penalty fare issues - which this thread is about - if you were observant you would have realised this.

Well thanks for your assessment on me just from my views on this forum - which are actually quite correct but because you don't agree with me then you think I shouldn't be dealing with the public whilst trying to protect my businesses revenue.



Well quite it does - just on that other thread someone even asked why they don't do 'pay later' system which was rightly shot down as being told that everyone would do this therefore every travels for free.


Not once have ANY of you agreed with most of us in that personal responsibility must come first. What you want is the railway to bend over backwards.

Lets face it its been a few times now where I have been accused of being anti passenger by a few people on here and some who should really know better however you base that on nothing apart from my view that a passenger has a responsibility as well as the railway does. However you all jump up and down at the railway when it gets something wrong yet when a passenger does then again the railway must do its bit to help them. But yet you don't advocate that do you? No. And it shows from your posts.

Anyway I am sick of making the same point again and again on here to you lot. If you want to change it go do something better than bitching about it on here. MP's Passenger focus the lot. Youll probably get nowhere but at least you can feel warm and smug inside knowing you at least tried.

Do the TOCs agree with personal responsibility, given that they allow season ticket holders to forget their season ticket at least once? That suggests they agree with some discretion but only if the person is a season ticket holder.

Perhaps TOCs only expect season ticket holders not to show personal responsibility or perhaps they suspect season ticket holders of being more forgetful than other ticket holders

Of course if someone holds a monthly season ticket and a network rail card, they must only be more forgetful when using their season ticket and not when using their network rail card.

In this respect perhaps they are suddenly are able to be personally responsible when using the network rail card but when travelling on the season ticket, they suddenly are not able to be so personally responsible.

I know that's far fetched but I think it makes the point. People are people. I doubt their personal responsibility changes according to the type of card they use. I'm not suggesting people are saying that . Again people don't become more or less forgetful based o the type of cars they use.

Thus I think if it's OK for season ticket holder, why not introduce it more widely.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Do the TOCs agree with personal responsibility, given that they allow season ticket holders to forget their season ticket at least once? That suggests they agree with some discretion but only if the person is a season ticket holder.

Perhaps TOCs only expect season ticket holders not to show personal responsibility or perhaps they suspect season ticket holders of being more forgetful than other ticket holders

Of course if someone holds a monthly season ticket and a network rail card, they must only be more forgetful when using their season ticket and not when using their network rail card.

In this respect perhaps they are suddenly are able to be personally responsible when using the network rail card but when travelling on the season ticket, they suddenly are not able to be so personally responsible.

I know that's far fetched but I think it makes the point. People are people. I doubt their personal responsibility changes according to the type of card they use. I'm not suggesting people are saying that . Again people don't become more or less forgetful based o the type of cars they use.

Thus I think if it's OK for season ticket holder, why not introduce it more widely.

Perhaps people should look at this from a different viewpoint for once

There are many things in life where, in return for making a more substantial commitment to something, the purchaser gets additional benefits.

That is exactly what this is.

In return for committing to paying up-front for a longer period of rail travel the company has allowed a small benefit that isn't available to those who do not make that commitment.

What's wrong with that?

 

[reb0118]

Perhaps people should look at this from a different viewpoint for once....

There are many things in life where, in return for making a more substantial commitment to something, the purchaser gets additional benefits.....

What's wrong with that?

Exactly.

 

[infobleep]

Perhaps people should look at this from a different viewpoint for once

There are many things in life where, in return for making a more substantial commitment to something, the purchaser gets additional benefits.

That is exactly what this is.

In return for committing to paying up-front for a longer period of rail travel the company has allowed a small benefit that isn't available to those who do not make that commitment.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing. Just that people are saying people need to take personal responsibility and that nothing should change because people need to take personal responsibility.

However that's not the case with season tickets.

 

[Oswyntail]

There is also another angle, particularly relevant to children of this age. If they make a genuine mistake, is it potentially more profitable in the long term to:

• Point out the mistake and exercise discretion (or have a system for railcard holders similar to seasons where you seem to be allowed n strikes)
• Apply the full majesty of the Law with Penalty Fares and the threat of authority

The whole point of young persons' discount cards and railcards is to snare a customer for life.

 

[Flamingo]

We're back to telling the "genuine mistake" from the "chancer", and from there somebody posting about a lack of consistency, and so the roundabout continues...

 

[londiscape]

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.

I would be interested to know, of those whose views fall nearer to the first faction, what their opinion would be regarding rail staff who make (non safety-critical) mistakes. For example, booking office clerk presses the wrong button and sells passenger wrong ticket, or accidentally overcharges passenger, or a guard who departs a few minutes early, or a catering manager who forgets to restock the buffet with choccie bars.

Would the appropriate action be to immediately dock said staff member's wages by £80-£120 or thereabouts as punishment? Or should their manager just have a quiet word and respectfully ask the staff member to be a bit more careful next time? After all, as is pointed out here from time to time, rail staff are human like the rest of us and we all make mistakes.

 

[Haywain]

We're back to telling the "genuine mistake" from the "chancer", and from there somebody posting about a lack of consistency, and so the roundabout continues...

And so often the people who want discretion are the same ones who complain about a lack of consistency!

 

[Clip]

Really? I would never have guessed. But can you explain a) why this aspect has to be so strictly applied (even why the rules say that, if that is the case) when most experienced front line officials can (if willing) tell a chancer from a genuine case and b) how the use of discretion in this area could lead to free travel for all. For the simple fact that everyone would want discretion and thus want to pay later and get free travel by not paying later. I would've thought this obvious.


Thank you for pointing this out. As I am obviously so incapable, I am truly grateful for your patronising sarcasm that adds nothing, but confirms my opinion.

See, once again you are thinking that my attitude and sarcasm towards you and others in this thread is the way I act when I am at work, of which you know nothing about and are totally wrong.

Do the TOCs agree with personal responsibility, given that they allow season ticket holders to forget their season ticket at least once? That suggests they agree with some discretion but only if the person is a season ticket holder.

Perhaps TOCs only expect season ticket holders not to show personal responsibility or perhaps they suspect season ticket holders of being more forgetful than other ticket holders

Of course if someone holds a monthly season ticket and a network rail card, they must only be more forgetful when using their season ticket and not when using their network rail card.

In this respect perhaps they are suddenly are able to be personally responsible when using the network rail card but when travelling on the season ticket, they suddenly are not able to be so personally responsible.

I know that's far fetched but I think it makes the point. People are people. I doubt their personal responsibility changes according to the type of card they use. I'm not suggesting people are saying that . Again people don't become more or less forgetful based o the type of cars they use.

Thus I think if it's OK for season ticket holder, why not introduce it more widely.

Really? We get the money upfront every year from season ticket holders and they only are allowed to do it twice - Im guessing most people who hold a railcard never spend anywhere near what an ST holder does per year but lets do a comparison shall we

Dover Priory - TC 1-6 £5792 per year which works out at £12.06 per journey.

Now if they forget their ST for a third time they are then having to pay a penalty of £76 which is 6 times the cost of their ticket they have already bought - which is far more than double which you get for a PF isn't it? Yes.


And this is why ST holders really do understand personal responsibility because they understand what the costs are to them if they carry on forgetting their ST.

 

[infobleep]

See, once again you are thinking that my attitude and sarcasm towards you and others in this thread is the way I act when I am at work, of which you know nothing about and are totally wrong.



Really? We get the money upfront every year from season ticket holders and they only are allowed to do it twice - Im guessing most people who hold a railcard never spend anywhere near what an ST holder does per year but lets do a comparison shall we

Dover Priory - TC 1-6 £5792 per year which works out at £12.06 per journey.

Now if they forget their ST for a third time they are then having to pay a penalty of £76 which is 6 times the cost of their ticket they have already bought - which is far more than double which you get for a PF isn't it? Yes.


And this is why ST holders really do understand personal responsibility because they understand what the costs are to them if they carry on forgetting their ST.

Well why wouldn't someone without a season ticket but using another rail discount card not think along the same lines as a season ticket holder.

After all I don't think it would double the cost if a person using a young persons rail card is travelling on an advanced ticket.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Well why wouldn't someone without a season ticket but using another rail discount card not think along the same lines as a season ticket holder.

After all I don't think it would double the cost if a person using a young persons rail card is travelling on an advanced ticket.

The only ST holders that get any discretion are those with Annual tickets. There is a difference between paying thousands of pounds in advance and travelling every single weekday to paying just £30 and maybe travelling once or twice a month.

So if you were an RPI who would you show discretion to. A commuter who the guard sees regularly and that RPI has seen a few times when they have done this train before and has always had a gold card, or the student who has an advance Y-P ticket for £5 for a journey where the anytime fare is ten times that and no railcard?

Bearing in mind as an RPI you will have heard all the stories before.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only ST holders that get any discretion are those with Annual tickets. There is a difference between paying thousands of pounds in advance and travelling every single weekday to paying just £30 and maybe travelling once or twice a month.

So if you were an RPI who would you show discretion to. A commuter who the guard sees regularly and that RPI has seen a few times when they have done this train before and has always had a gold card, or the student who has an advance Y-P ticket for £5 for a journey where the anytime fare is ten times that and no railcard?

Personally, I would extend the same discretion as presently applies to annual season tickets to all season ticket holders and to all Railcards. Particularly Railcards, as accidentally boarding without one is much easier than accidentally boarding without a season ticket at the increasing number of barriered stations.

The discretion I think applies once a year without admin fee, and once more with. I would be happy for that to be once a year full stop with admin fee even on the first occasion.

I would also not prosecute for an out of date season ticket/Railcard provided it expired very recently (one week, perhaps?) and the appropriate Anytime fare or PF was paid within the specified time period. It's all easily done.

Yes (to the assembled RPIs) that will slightly increase fraud, but generally I prefer the odd person to get away with things than even one case of someone being prosecuted when it isn't really justified.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The long term solution will in my view be the Railcard being either an online account that produces print-at-home and/or mobile tickets, or an ITSO smartcard where the tickets cannot be issued in paper form, only on the card. This will mean no Railcard = no ticket, and thus people will be stopped at barriers (increasingly prevalent) in the way they aren't now.

That is a very passenger friendly aspect of barriers and one reason I quite like them - they prevent most instances of erroneous ticketless travel before it goes far enough to need a discussion surrounding PFs and prosecution.

This seems like a very sensible solution to the problem. The smart card could also have a digitised photo, so that when challenged, it could be shown that the card was issued to the holder.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This seems like a very sensible solution to the problem. The smart card could also have a digitised photo, so that when challenged, it could be shown that the card was issued to the holder.

And the online tickets, if that option was used, would be named and could even have a photo printed on them.

 

[sheff1]

I hestitate to report practices from other countries for the reason explained earlier, but when I was fiddling about with TVMs in Valencia the other week I thought I would see what would happen if I attempted to purchase a discounted ticket to which I was not entitled (obviously I had already purchased the correct ticket).

What happened is that, after selecting the ticket, I was warned that it was only available for holders of certain documentation and, importantly, it then asked me to enter the number on my documentation. I entered a random sequence of numbers and sale was refused. Now, whether that was because it had access to a database of all valid numbers or just that the format was wrong I do not know ....

... but, either way, a need to enter a documentation ID (and an expiry date in the case of GB railcards) at TVMs or online would either prompt someone to look at their railcard and see it had expired or they would make something up. If the Number/Expiry Date info was then printed on the ticket it would surely make identification of the latter 'chancers' a lot easier with no 'expensive' link to a database of railcards required.

 

[Flamingo]

If the Number/Expiry Date info was then printed on the ticket it would surely make identification of the latter 'chancers' a lot easier with no 'expensive' link to a database of railcards required.

The way the system works at present needs no expensive link to a database of railcards...

 

[sheff1]

So, only 4 mins to a reference to the existing rules - at least it proves my earlier point :cry:

 

[najaB]

So, only 4 mins to a reference to the existing rules - at least it proves my earlier point :cry:

It's not just a knee-jerk reference to the existing rules, there are other problems with this system. For example, what happens if I want to buy tickets but don't actually have my railcard with me at the time? What happens if I want to buy tickets for later travel - e.g. to bag an Advance as soon as they come out - but my current card expires before the travel date?

 

[Fare-Cop]

That is a very passenger friendly aspect of barriers and one reason I quite like them - they prevent most instances of erroneous ticketless travel before it goes far enough to need a discussion surrounding PFs and prosecution.

Rail revenue protection strategies are much more complex than something that can be always automated.

The fact is that in most instances all an automatic barrier gate actually protects in a practical sense is the minimum fare to the next stop along the line.

Might be worth reading some of the research & comment that has been invested in the subject.

Here's just one link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmtran/writev/rail2020/ror34.htm

 

[cjmillsnun]

The way the system works at present needs no expensive link to a database of railcards...

The infrastructure already exists. TVMs and ticket offices already have on-line connections of some sort, and ATOC already hold a database of railcards that have been sold on-line.

It wouldn't be expensive to roll this out to railcards sold at ticket offices.

Also if the Advantix replacement has an on-line connection (now is the ideal time to do it whilst it is being developed and tested), then it need not be too costly.

 

[sheff1]

It's not just a knee-jerk reference to the existing rules, there are other problems with this system. For example, what happens if I want to buy tickets but don't actually have my railcard with me at the time? What happens if I want to buy tickets for later travel - e.g. to bag an Advance as soon as they come out - but my current card expires before the travel date?

Good, your have raised potential issues with the system. That assists a debate, whereas knee jerk reference to existing rules/practices does not.

To answer your first point, I suggest that where such as system is in place people who wish to buy rail tickets in advance of travel would either have their railcard with them or have the details of it stored on their mobile phone or in their diary alongside other important info (my son does the former/I do the latter ). I assume people in Spain will be fully aware that no proof of entitlement available = unable to purchase a discounted ticket.

Re Advances - when you renew a railcard do you retain the same number ? If so, no real issue but, if not, the solution would have to be thought through a bit more.

 

[najaB]

That assists a debate, whereas knee jerk reference to existing rules/practices does not.

TBH, I don't see any need to change the current purchase or use aspects of railcards - they work, so I don't seen the point in spending money change those aspects in order to deal with what happens when cards are forgotten. The issue that we've been discussing is what happens when passengers don't have their railcard - should they get a penalty fare or not, and what happens if they are unable to pay the penalty.

Personally, if I were in charge of the railways, I would keep the current penalty fare arrangements (twice the cost of the Anytime single), but as I said earlier in the thread I would add a reduction to the Anytime single fare if they can produce the railcard (at a booking office?) within a set period. This would still have a deterrent effect as they would have paid more overall than the most expensive ticket available. This discount on the PF would only be available once in the lifetime of the railcard - perhaps the card could be physically marked in some way to indicate that this has been done.

As to what happens if the passenger is unable to pay on the spot, I would issue UFN's if the case seems genuine, with prosecution to follow if the UFN is unpaid. Guards and RPI's would follow the current process if the customer appears to be chancing it, or if the railcard has been marked.

 

[AM9]

Did you read the bit where I suggested it should be a "once a year" offer, like it is for season tickets on some TOCs?

Neil

Then if I was an 'opportunist railcard forgetter', I would make sure that my one let-off per year was with the most expensive journey, so that other passengers were paying mine.

 

[dcsprior]

One thing that seems to not be being mentioned on this thread is that the point of railcards is meant to be to encourage rail travel. Charging someone an anytime fare costing an order of magnitude more than their discounted ticket which was invalidated by forgetting their railcard is unlikely to achieve that aim. Even Ryanair etc have realised the need to avoid the appearance of being "out to get" their customers.

One change I'd make that I don't think anyone has suggested here is to allow passengers who realise before departure that their railcard is missing to excess a railcard-discounted advance to the non-railcard advance at the same tier.

In terms of the scenario discussed here, I can't think of any ideas to make it more passenger-friendly that haven't already been mentioned on this thread, and had some downsides pointed out.

 

[Flamingo]

So, only 4 mins to a reference to the existing rules - at least it proves my earlier point :cry:

No, it's proving that yet again, posters on this site will try and take a simple easily understood and implemented system, and make it into something complicated and difficult to administer, and think that all it needs is the wave of a magic wand "to make it so"! :roll:

It has been debated to death on so many threads that at this stage it's gone way past funny, tiresome disappeared in the rear-view mirror a long time ago, and it's just become annoying.