Train Penalty Fares - some facts

KingCheeseZombie

Recently, there have been a number of posts on the issue of Train Penalty Fares given to passengers who are not in possession of a valid ticket upon inspection. Having been issued a Train Penalty Fare notice in rather complicated conditions and having read other peoples experiences I wrote to the Department of Transport for clarification on the procedures ticket officers must adhere to when issuing Penalty Fares. I have included the full extract from both my letter and their response below:

To DfT

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Issuing of penalty fare tickets for rail travel

My partner was recently issued with a penalty fare ticket for failing to purchase a ticket from Station A to Station B stations. While I am aware that it is the passengers responsibility to purchase tickets (where/when possible), is it not the responsibility of the train operators to correctly enforce the policy of penalty fare scheme?

Case A
John arrives at his local station to catch a train to his nearest city centre. Unfortunately, it is a Sunday morning and the ticket office is closed; there is no alternative method to purchase a ticket so John travels to his local city centre without a valid ticket. On arriving, there are no train guards checking tickets as their shift does not begin for another hour; so John passes through the platform ticket barriers without purchasing a ticket and proceeds to exit the station completely unchecked.

On returning to the station John purchases the return portion of his journey and enters through the now staffed train barriers. A platform officer recognises him from the morning and accuses John of not having a valid ticket for the journey he made that morning even though he now possesses a valid ticket to travel and be in a designated ticket area.

Q. Has John broken the rules? - I imagine the answer to this is yes for the morning part of his journey.
Q. As he left the station is John liable to receive a future (i.e. on a separate visit to said station) penalty fare for the journey that he made without a ticket that morning?
Q. Can a ticket officer issue a penalty fare ticket to a passenger who possesses a valid ticket to travel at that moment in time for a journey they made previously? - if the answer yes then is visual recognition enough or is more evidence required to issue the ticket?

Case B
Mary was travelling on the same train as John that morning and was also unable to purchase a valid ticket for travel. Like John, she left the un-staffed city centre station without taking the time to purchase a valid ticket. However, a vigilant platform officer suspects that Mary intends to leave the station without having purchased a ticket and follows her to the ticket barrier. When Mary passes through, the platform officer informs her that she has made a journey without a valid ticket and will be issued with a penalty fare.

Q. Has Mary broken the rules? Again - I imagine that the answer is yes.
Q. Having successfully leaving the designated ticket area without challenge, is Mary liable to receive a penalty fare if challenged within the station premises?
Q. Does the jurisdiction of the ticket issuing officer cover the entire station premises or just the designated ticket areas?

Case C
Jurado is somewhat quicker on his feet than Mary and manages to exit the station premises before the vigilant ticket officer manages to reach him.

Q. Can a penalty fare be issued on non-station premises?

In summary: is a passenger continuously liable (for a penalty fare) for a train journey conducted without a valid ticket, even if they leave the destination station without a ticket inspection? i.e. could a passenger be issued with a penalty fare for a journey undertaken 3 weeks (or years) ago if the ticket inspector could prove that s/he travelled without a valid ticket at that time?

I appreciate that I am citing cases that are somewhat unlikely, but they have occurred to a number of people. I and others would appreciate clarification on the matter as I have heard accounts of different interpretations of the rules being enforced at the same station.

I would also appreciate if you could send me any relevant information regarding this policy, the policy intention and the rules for its enforcement.

Regards,

Response from DfT
Thank you very much for your e mail dated January 14th concerning the penalty fare notice issued to your partner recently when traveling from Station A to Station B .

Turning to your scenarios, in cases A, B and C and in a penalty fares area, if the ticket office is shut, a permit to travel machine or another secondary method of ticket issuing facility such as a ticket vending machine should be in place and operational. If they are, and the passengers follow the rules the circumstances are the same in each case.

If there is no ticket machine and the passenger cannot buy a ticket proper a permit to travel should be purchased from the permit machine and exchanged for a valid ticket at the earliest opportunity and this would be either on board the train if the Conductor can be found or at the ticket barrier or ticket office at the other end.

For your overall reference please follow the link below for internet access to the full documentation regarding National Rail Penalty Fare Schemes.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/pf/

The Independent Appeals Service (IRCAS) assesses appeals in line with a code of practice approved by this Department. However, I hope you will understand that the Department for Transport is not itself resourced to deal with individual cases as a second line of appeal. I am however able to outline further details of the appeal process.

Appeals may be accepted on two grounds: First, a failure on the part of the operator to comply with the terms of its Penalty Fares scheme and of the Penalty Fares Rules. This would apply, if for example, the passenger was not in fact liable to a penalty fare because the ticket office was closed and all available machines out of order, or if the required warning notices were not properly displayed.

The second ground for appeal is a failure on the part of the Authorised Collector to apply appropriate discretion. Each operator’s Penalty Fares Scheme includes specific written instructions to Authorised Collectors, setting out the situations where discretion should be used, even though the passenger is liable to a penalty fare. The instructions must be written in line with the Department’s written policy on penalty fares.

Discretion must be used where, for example, an elderly, infirm or disabled person is unable to access the ticket office because of steps, or in cases of extreme train service disruption. It does not cover cases where passengers have left insufficient time to buy a ticket, or where it is necessary to queue to buy a ticket.

If your partner has received a final response from IRCAS and remains dissatisfied and feels that she may have grounds as stated above to believe an appeal should have been upheld she may wish to seek recourse through the statutory passenger representative organisation Passenger Focus, please follow this link http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/

A penalty fare is what lawyers call 'strict liability'. In other words, there is no need to prove intention to avoid payment, honesty or dishonesty, it's a simple matter of whether or not the passenger can show a valid ticket if ticket facilities were available at their starting station. If they can't show a valid ticket, the fare is £20. However, this is a civil matter not a criminal matter, similar to a parking ticket. Outside of the penalty fare areas passengers without tickets intending to avoid payment may be prosecuted under provisions of the 1889 Railways Act.

I do hope this response is at least helpful in terms of the information supplied in respect of the penalty fares policy background.


Yours sincerely

DAVID WILLIAMS
Retail Standards Manager

Applied to my experience it seems as though these rules were correctly followed and the ticket was issued correctly (fair cop!). However, I think there is quite a worthwhile discussion to be had about the appropriateness of these rules in relation to the decreasing level of customer service passengers receive from train companies. Passengers are being asked to do (not to mention pay) more and more while the reductions in visible members of train staff increase - replacing a ticket office with a machine that cannot actually issue certain types of tickets (like open returns to local destinations) is diabolical.

And yes, while a long queue holds no legal weight as a reason for not buying a ticket, when pushing to get more and more people to use public transport is it not a little too much to expect commuters to calmly queue at one ticket machine to buy tickets and risk being late for work or important meetings?! Perhaps the train companies will introduce a government backed late to work note scheme that employers will be legally obliged to accept?

Sorry that this started off as a serious thread and has devolved into a childish rant at 'the man', but I actually like catching public transport - I just don't like unreasonable behavior or rules.

pompeyrich

I'm no lawyer so my opinion is just that but in case A how could the platform officer possibly know that John didn't have a valid ticket for his outward journey. John could have bought a ticket prior to the day of travel and would have had it in his pocket or wallet and as no-one asked him to produce it, would quite possibly have thrown it in the nearest bin. So although morally wrong I would say it would be impossible to prove he had travelled without a valid ticket.

Cases B & C are more clear cut in my view as they were asked or at least challenged to produce a ticket, which neither did. Just by running away from a crime doesn't make one any less guilty of it.

KingCheeseZombie

pompeyrich wrote: »

I'm no lawyer so my opinion is just that but in case A how could the platform officer possibly know that John didn't have a valid ticket for his outward journey. John could have bought a ticket prior to the day of travel and would have had it in his pocket or wallet and as no-one asked him to produce it, would quite possibly have thrown it in the nearest bin. So although morally wrong I would say it would be impossible to prove he had travelled without a valid ticket.

Cases B & C are more clear cut in my view as they were asked or at least challenged to produce a ticket, which neither did. Just by running away from a crime doesn't make one any less guilty of it.

I think the point the DfT are making is that John is still liable to receive a penalty fare even though he has left the station should the train company be able to prove that he never had a valid ticket to travel. On appeal, I think john is the most likely to have his fine rescinded, but he would still have to accept the issuing of the ticket in this circumstance if he could not provide a valid ticket when requested.

What I was trying to establish with Case A was more to do with how can a ticket officer issue a ticket on a journey that happened in the past - it seems that they can if you cannot provide evidence to the contrary - then it's up to you to appeal.

pompeyrich

He probably is liable IF they could PROVE he didn't have a ticket but I still cant see how they would have that proof under the circumstances shown in your example.

I would be surprised if a tickets were issued under those circumstances regularly but the is always one jobsworth who might stretch the rules and leave John with a hard job to prove otherwise.

omelette451

In all the three of the OP's cases there is no way a penalty fare can be applied, since there was no way a ticket could be purchased before the journey began - we're told that the office was closed and there was no alternative means of buying a ticket.

In my mind the grey area is when there is no open ticket office and the ticket machines, if there are any, either don't take the money offered (e.g. they don't accept cards or give change) or don't offer the actual ticket required (many of the older ones have a specific set of destinations rather than all UK/Ireland ones that are contained in the newer computerised ones), as in both these cases the person intended to buy the right ticket but was not able to. Thankfully my local train company doesn't enforce penalty fares at unstaffed stations, but I've often wondered what would happen in these cases.

KingCheeseZombie

omelette451 wrote: »

In all the three of the OP's cases there is no way a penalty fare can be applied, since there was no way a ticket could be purchased before the journey began - we're told that the office was closed and there was no alternative means of buying a ticket.

In my mind the grey area is when there is no open ticket office and the ticket machines, if there are any, either don't take the money offered (e.g. they don't accept cards or give change) or don't offer the actual ticket required (many of the older ones have a specific set of destinations rather than all UK/Ireland ones that are contained in the newer computerised ones), as in both these cases the person intended to buy the right ticket but was not able to. Thankfully my local train company doesn't enforce penalty fares at unstaffed stations, but I've often wondered what would happen in these cases.

Actually, in all three cases a Penalty Fare can be applied because despite there not being a method of purchasing a ticket at each of their departure stations, each passenger is required to purchase a ticket to travel at the first possible opportunity. In each of these cases this was at the station they all arrived at - instead they all passed through the ticket barriers (with varying levels of success) without a ticket - it was this action that caused them all to break the rules.

A_Nice_Englishman

In most stations I've been to the ticket office is outside the barriers so passengers arriving by train would have to pass through them before reaching the ticket office.

I don't think Mary has broken the rules if she was challenged at the ticket barrier as she had not then had an opportunity to buy a ticket.

Jurado has broken the rules assuming there was an opportunity to buy a ticket at the destination station but I don't know if he can be challenged off railway premises and even if he can, proving he didn't have a ticket seems difficult if not impossible.

John has also broken the rules assuming he had an opportunity to buy a ticket, though proving he didn't have one in the morning would also seem to be impossible.

omelette451

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

In most stations I've been to the ticket office is outside the barriers so passengers arriving by train would have to pass through them before reaching the ticket office.

For obvious reasons the ticket office is always on the 'landside' part of the station, but there's often an excess fare ticket office 'trainside' for situations such as this.

exil

In our area, stations are often unstaffed or staffed part time. Even if staffed the staff are in the ticket office and can't check tickets either for people boarding or alighting. The train guards do check tickets - if the train's not too busy, or it's late at night (not easy getting drunks to pay up). Arriving in the city centre there is a barrier. I would guess 20-30% of passengers have no ticket. Since the taxpayer subsidises the train operator I doubt if there's much incentive to chase for tickets - if the revenue increases the subsidy would be reduced.

KeithP

exil wrote: »

<snip>
Since the taxpayer subsidises the train operator I doubt if there's much incentive to chase for tickets - if the revenue increases the subsidy would be reduced.

Actually, its happening the other way round.
The subsidies are being reduced, so there is (should be) a greater incentive to increase the revenue collected. :beer:

FARE-COP

KeithP wrote: »

Actually, its happening the other way round.
The subsidies are being reduced, so there is (should be) a greater incentive to increase the revenue collected. :beer:

I think everyone accepts that public transport and particularly railways requires vast investment and a hell of a lot of improvement, but more people than ever now travel on trains without paying thier fares for one reason or another

Not paying a fare because an opportunity to avoid paying presents itself is just as wrong as intending to avoid a fare in the first place and in judgement, the law doesn't differentiate at the point of conviction. If you know that you need to pay for a journey then you have an obligation to do so.

In the case of a 'retrospective capture' there are many things that can be done to secure evidence, but in the main I'd say if the rail company is going to go to those lengths it would be to proceed to prosecution, not charge a penalty fare.

Keith is exactly right, the aim is to abolish public subsidy and make the traveller pay a far greater proportion of the cost of providing the service.
That is part of the reason for recent above inflation fares increases.

Greater enforcement of regulation, including penalty fares is intended to increase revenue by providing greater deterrent to fare evasion.

In the case of TFL, on 11th January this year the penalty fare has both risen from £20 to £25, which increases income from paid notices and doubled to £50 for late payment outside the first 21 days.

Unpaid penalty fares more often result in prosecution nowadays too.

Save money by buying a ticket at the first opportunity. Sorry if it sounds like preaching, but that doesn't mean the first opportunity that is convenient for you. It means at the very first opportunity that is available and that does mean if you have to put yourself out a little by walking a few yards extra to the booking office or machine, rather than rushing on at your changing point, that's what the law expects you to do.

I really hope that helps someone avoid an unnecessary penalty.