Train Penalty Fares - some facts

omelette451

ruthiejane wrote: »

It is my responsibility to overcome the inconvieniece and purchase a ticket as soon as I am able - either before boarding the train, or to go and find a ticket inspector on board the first train on my journey.

That's an interesting point. In France there has long been a rule that you can avoid heavy penalties (you still have to pay a small fee but it's not much) "if you find the conductor/inspector before he finds you". In practice it works well, as it's obvious who does and who doesn't have the intention of paying.

FARE-COP

omelette451 wrote: »

That's an interesting point. In France there has long been a rule that you can avoid heavy penalties (you still have to pay a small fee but it's not much) "if you find the conductor/inspector before he finds you". In practice it works well, as it's obvious who does and who doesn't have the intention of paying.

That remedy has a lot to commend it, but it does not deal with the habitual opportunist offender. I worked in this field at the introduction of penalty fares in this country and I'd like to offer another perspective.

If a traveller gets on to a train where facilities are available to get a ticket then there is generally no excuse for not having done so.

If you get to the station late and haven't bought a ticket when the train you want to catch pulls in, I'm afraid it is no-ones fault but your own. The rail company are not responsible for your actions. You are obliged buy a ticket and wait to catch the next one unless the staff at the station give you express authority to board and pay your fare at the first opportunity. Ideally it should be a note, but the practicalities demand that it will usually be verbal authority at rail staff discretion.

It's no good you jumping on the train and telling any inspector 'The bloke at the station said it was OK to get on' if he didn't do so. These days the system is in place for an almost immediate check with the station wherever you are in the country and if you have been untruthful, you have now exposed yourself to the risk of prosecution for fare evasion, rather than a penalty fare.

As an Inspector for many years, I always took the view that if I was on a train and saw someone board and that person sought me out to pay his or her fare, before the train reached the next station stop, I would sell them the ticket that they wanted regardless of the rules. He or she clearly had no intention of not paying in my mind and has made the effort.

If that person had gone and sat down and started work at a lap top or, began reading the paper and I had to seek him out to check for a ticket it is an entirely different matter. In those circumstances the fare was at risk, if I had not made a check. There is a chance that the traveller might not pay and therefore a penalty is justified at the very least.

A very important judgement in an appeal court case back in the 1970s and well before the introduction of penalty fares, determined that opportunist fare evasion is a criminal act.

If you don't pay a fare just because the opportunity to get on a train without having done so presents itself, please be aware of the possible consequences of your actions.

omelette451

FARE-COP wrote: »

That remedy has a lot to commend it, but it does not deal with the habitual opportunist offender.

Perhaps not, but it does work quite well. Maybe it's because ticket checks are much more frequent than they are here, and although it's not failsafe, few people do it because they know the chance of being found out is quite high. People are also more willing to accept the fact that they have done something wrong: I've never seen anyone protest at having to pay a fine for not having a ticket in the way they do here.

Incidentally in many ways it's interesting how differently etiquette develops in different countries: on French trains there's no need for 'quiet coaches' because no one uses mobile phones in the carriages; people get up and take the call in the vestibules. If someone does answer (it's usually an English person) they get glared at.

Altarf

FARE-COP wrote: »

If a traveller gets on to a train where facilities are available to get a ticket then there is generally no excuse for not having done so.

It depends on your definition of " where facilities are available to get a ticket", and whether a lengthy queue at the ticket office means that facilities are available. This barrister doesn't believe it does - http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/jun/30/consumernews.transportintheuk

FARE-COP

omelette451 wrote: »

Perhaps not, but it does work quite well. Maybe it's because ticket checks are much more frequent than they are here, and although it's not failsafe, few people do it because they know the chance of being found out is quite high. People are also more willing to accept the fact that they have done something wrong: I've never seen anyone protest at having to pay a fine for not having a ticket in the way they do here.

Incidentally in many ways it's interesting how differently etiquette develops in different countries: on French trains there's no need for 'quiet coaches' because no one uses mobile phones in the carriages; people get up and take the call in the vestibules. If someone does answer (it's usually an English person) they get glared at.

Yes, I agree, our society does seem generally to leave a great deal to be desired in the area of respect.

omelette451

Altarf wrote: »

It depends on your definition of " where facilities are available to get a ticket", and whether a lengthy queue at the ticket office means that facilities are available. This barrister doesn't believe it does - http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/jun/30/consumernews.transportintheuk

I seem to remember SWT saying it wouldn't impose penalty fares if queues were longer than the length it set itself in its service guidelines (measured in minutes), but I can't remember if this was before or after that guardian article was written.

FARE-COP

Altarf wrote: »

It depends on your definition of " where facilities are available to get a ticket", and whether a lengthy queue at the ticket office means that facilities are available. This barrister doesn't believe it does - http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/jun/30/consumernews.transportintheuk

Yes, I am sure that we all agree, lots of things could be very much better in many places, but it is very dangerous to rely on Mr Cobley's opinion as so many people have already found out to their cost. Neither District Judges nor Magistrates Courts seem to agree with him.

The matter of what is a reasonable wait is actually why I made the point about rail staff discretion earlier. In my experience most of the staff on the ground are reasonable and when they cannot cope, booking office staff will usually advise the ticket checking staff that there was too much of a queue and that some people were advised to pay on the train. No-one denies there are occasionally unhelpful staff just as there are unpleasant and rude travellers. Often the attitude of one determines the action of the other. It isn't a defence, but we are all human and all make mistakes at times.

The sadness for me is also drawn from personal experience in seeing the continued growth in numbers of people who are chancing their arm, hoping they will not get caught and when they do, telling inspectors that they were let through when they were not given any such permission, or, that the machines were not working when the computer record and CCTV more often than not shows that there was no problem.

That's why we will keep the blunt instrument of a straightforward penalty in this country and recent TfL experience seems to suggest it will get more expensive and be used more widely too.

Altarf

FARE-COP wrote: »

it is very dangerous to rely on Mr Cobley's opinion as so many people have already found out to their cost. Neither District Judges nor Magistrates Courts seem to agree with him.

I therefore assume that you are aware of cases since the article was written in 2007, where a passenger without a ticket (due to length of queues) has been charged a penalty fare but not paid it, and the train company has then successfully sued in the County Court for payment of the penalty fare.

FARE-COP

Altarf wrote: »

I therefore assume that you are aware of cases since the article was written in 2007, where a passenger without a ticket (due to length of queues) has been charged a penalty fare but not paid it, and the train company has then successfully sued in the County Court for payment of the penalty fare.

It is not necessary for the train operator to sue in the County Court to secure a PAYMENT. It is more serious than a civil claim.

If you do not pay penalty fare within the period allowed and stipulated on it the payment opportunity allowed by that notice can be cancelled.

The rail company is then at liberty to take action for the unpaid rail fare in a Magistrates Court.

District Judges and Magistrates have been asked this question by defendants who said they thought the queue was too long and the Magistrates have replied by saying we all have to make time to buy a ticket. This hinges on the matter of who made the judgement that the queue was too long and it is clear that some people are so impatient as to not be prepared to wait 5 to 10 minutes before proceeding without paying. The Courts do not usually have much sympaty with that argument.

I've even heard the argument 'there was a queue' put by defendents when the commuter route they were travelling on had a train running every 8 minutes. That cannot be an unreasonable wait by any measure.

I don't pretend that it is a perfect resolution, but it does not cut much ice if you have been charged with a strict liability offence.

The company can take action in any case where any person is found on the railway without a ticket and has not paid when there was an opportunity to do so available to him.

A great many convictions have been recorded by various train companies using this process since Penalty Fares first came into operation in 1984.

So, the answer to your question is yes, I do know of a great many convictions in these circumstances, but it is for fare evasion or, a breach of byelaw, not civil debt as your reference to County Court would suggest.

I am not suggesting that everyone should pay up without appealing. If you believe that you have a genuine case for grievance make sure that you appeal in writing and within the time stipulated on the notice.

Once you get an answer, if you still feel that your case has not been heard fairly then refer your appeal to the Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Service.

Whatever you do, do not just ignore it because you might get a nasty shock if the company decide to proceed.

Hope that helps

Altarf

FARE-COP wrote: »

It is not necessary for the train operator to sue in the County Court to secure a conviction.

You do of course realise that a County Court deals with civil not criminal matters and thus you cannot be "convicted" in one.

Under the Penalty Fare Rules, a train operator can recover a Penalty Fare as a civil debt in the County Court. However, as pointed out in the article they have repeatedly failed to do so, instead relying on on the threat of prosecution at a Magistrates court instead. So why their reluctance?

FARE-COP wrote: »

This hinges on the matter of who made the judgement that the queue was too long and it is clear that some people are so impatient as to not be prepared to wait 5 to 10 minutes before proceeding without paying.

Well the Department for Transport who set the Penalty Fare Rules and can withdraw the facility to use them have a very straightforward opinion -

4.12 Where penalty fares apply, passengers must allow enough time to buy a ticket, including time to queue, if necessary. Under normal circumstances, passengers may still be charged a penalty fare if they join a train without a ticket, even if there was a queue at the ticket office or ticket machine. However, we expect operators to provide enough ticket windows, ticket machines and staff at staffed stations to meet the queuing standards set out in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement and their Passenger's Charter under normal circumstances. This standard is normally five minutes at peak times and three minutes at other times. If queues at a particular station regularly fail to meet these standards at certain times or days of the week, the operator must either take action to sort out the problem before a penalty fares scheme is introduced or make sure that passengers are not charged penalty fares when these queuing standards are not met. This might include providing extra staff or ticket machines. A penalty fares scheme must include arrangements for telling authorised collectors when long queues build up at ticket offices (see paragraph 4.33).

So if you know of a train operator that is issuing Penalty Fares to "people are so impatient as to not be prepared to wait 5 to 10 minutes", perhaps you could let us know which one it is, as the Department for Transport may be very interested.