Train Penalty Fares - some facts

FARE-COP

Altarf, you are absolutely right about County Courts and the wrong word used in my earlier post. In thinking ahead I had typed 'secure a conviction' when I should have said 'secure a payment' I have corrected that.
Thank you for noticing my error and reminding me to correct it.

You are also right about the DoT and their guidelines I have not sought to advise otherwise. I should probably have stuck with saying 5 minutes rather than the actually wording used by a Magistrate to a defendant, which was 'You need to be prepared to wait five or ten minutes and get a ticket in future'. I'm sorry that was not made clear.

What I have sought to highlight is the huge discrepancy between the number of occasions when people claim to have waited more than 5 minutes and the actual number of times that this claim is true.

Genuine claimants, who have good reason to do so usually appeal and the rail company usually commutes their claim to the single fare and may even issue vouchers with an apology when it is found to be true that a wait was unusually excessive.

What I am referring to is the spurious claims made to revenue staff in a majority of cases, where queing is less than 5 minutes and yet the traveller without ticket makes a false claim about the length of delay.

From a purely personal viewpoint I don't think that I'm always so disorganised as to always be in a headlong rush to do everything. I'm happy to wait longer than 5 minutes and I also understand that I am in a minority.

5 minutes is the advertised maximum wait, but if you get to the station with 10 minutes to spare before your train arrives, is it really worth complaining if it takes 8 minutes to get a ticket? I'm not trying to be flippant here, I'm just trying to be a realist. Things are not perfect by any means and some places really do need a hell of a lot of improvement, but they are not as diabolical as some people do try to make out. Not all of the time at all rail stations.

Thanks again.

omelette451

Just out of interest, what happens if the queue is horrendously long at a station with ticket barriers? Are passengers justified in asking to be let through to pay on the train if they decide they cannot afford to wait? I ask because I once had to wait 40 minutes to buy a ticket at London Victoria (and that was for the 'Fast' Ticket machines, not even the window!), and at the time did not think there may be a way to avoid doing so.

Altarf

If the train operators merely wanted to 'secure a payment' then they would pursue the debt through the County Courts. So why don't they?

Perhaps it is because they know that they will get a more sympathetic hearing at a Magistrates court, even if they are not actually guaranteed to get any money even if a defendant is found guilty. And given that even if you are innocent you are likely to be found guilty (as in your example of someone who had to wait more than 10 minutes, contrary to the DoT policy) and likely to suffer an even more severe penalty, then I would guess that many people are persuaded to plead guilty even if they were not.

Genuine claimants should have no need to appeal if the train companies have implemented the Penalty Fares scheme properly. As I posted before the Department for Transport Penalty Fare policy states "A penalty fares scheme must include arrangements for telling authorised collectors when long queues build up at ticket offices", so the RPIs should already know the passenger is telling the truth and not issue a Penalty Fare, which is overturned on appeal when the passenger's story is actually investigated and found to be true.

If a case is overturned on appeal then clearly someone/something within the train company has failed. However the train company (or train company employee) will suffer no penalty for that failure.

I use the railways every day, paying a considerable amount of money in tickets, so have no love of fare dodgers. However I do believe that Penalty Fares schemes are open to abuse by the train operators.

FARE-COP

Altarf, I have apologised for an innacuracy in my earlier post, but I make no apology for sticking to facts otherwise.

At no point in this have I given any example where anyone HAD to wait more than 10 minutes. I have repeated an actual phrase used by a Magistrate where his words were not an accurate reflection of anything that had happened, but his advice to a defendant as a proposal for avoiding a penalty in future and not binding on anyone.

On the other occasion when I used a reference to that period of time, it was to say 'if you get to the station with 10 minutes to spare before your train arrives' and I then went on to suggest a general question.

I have made clear that I don't believe that the system is perfect either, but it is certainly not as bad as too many people would have us believe.

You say that you travel by rail evey day and for 30 years of my working life I have been employed by railways in dealing with these issues so, between us I'd say we have a wide experience of the problems.

You say that the Penalty Fare system is open to abuse by the rail companies and believe me, I can see your argument, but the facts are that a growing number of travellers are also abusing the rail system every day. Nationally, there has always been around 3% of travellers avoiding fares. Recent surveys have shown that in some commuter areas that figure has risen to as high as 15%.

Yes, a part of that increase will be people who genuinely couldn't get a ticket on some occasions, but there appears to be a trend toward a generally higher level of fare evasion.

Penalty fares were in part intended to be an aid to re-educating the habitual opportunist fare dodger who only does so because the system allows it. Today it seems that more and more people have found ways to abuse the trust that they will pay their fare. No-one denies that, when justified, the penalty paid also recoups a small part of the money lost.

The private rail companies don't help in many cases and no-one denies that facilities are often very stretched. If there is a staff failure through sickness or, one machine fails etc., they can be inadequate on a particular day. That's not the same as being inadequate every day, which is what too many people would always have us believe.

What are the realistic the alternatives?

Employing more staff for the very brief peak periods and then having to pay them to do nothing for hours on end? BR did that. Who's going to pay for it in the 21st Century?

Paying for more and more self-service machines would certainly help in some places, but that might mean the balance sheet dictates closure of the booking office at some stations. Where does the elderly lady go for advice at off-peak times then? It also means those genuine daily travellers who buy the cheapest ticket will have to go elsewhere to renew their season.

Putting more booking offices & machines in everywhere and then securing access to the whole system would resolve the issue, but that is neither affordable nor desireable. Imagine the length of queues to get onto a platform if we were to return to full barrier turnstiles as in Victorian days. Quite correctly, health and safety considerations would never allow it anyway.

Checking all tickets on every train is the answer, but with current high levels of ridership that isn't practical either and in any case, would require employment of large numbers of ticket inspectors for the peak periods referred to earlier. It is not a practical solution today.

I do not see any evidence of the rail companies commiting wholesale abuse of the Penalty Fares process, but I also do not say occasional mistakes are never made.

Sadly, if as many people put as much effort into buying a ticket when facilities really are available to them as they do in looking for excuses when they don't buy one and then get caught, the system would be a lot better for everyone.

Onlette, I am sorry this is such a long post, but I want to comment on your example too. I really do think that is appalling and cannot believe anyone would think otherwise. Yes, I do think passengers are justified in asking the company to do something about it, but of course saying 'I'll pay on the train' relies on there being someone to on the train to pay. Railways Byelaws make clear that the company can require people to queue and there is no obligation on them to act otherwise.

There are a number of things that the rail company could have considered doing in that situation and 40 minutes would seem excessive to even the most hard-hearted upholder of the rule.

What date did this occur?

KingCheeseZombie

FARE-COP wrote: »

Altarf, I have apologised for an innacuracy in my earlier post, but I make no apology for sticking to facts otherwise.

At no point in this have I given any example where anyone HAD to wait more than 10 minutes. I have repeated an actual phrase used by a Magistrate where his words were not an accurate reflection of anything that had happened, but his advice to a defendant as a proposal for avoiding a penalty in future and not binding on anyone.

On the other occasion when I used a reference to that period of time, it was to say 'if you get to the station with 10 minutes to spare before your train arrives' and I then went on to suggest a general question.

I have made clear that I don't believe that the system is perfect either, but it is certainly not as bad as too many people would have us believe.

You say that you travel by rail evey day and for 30 years of my working life I have been employed by railways in dealing with these issues so, between us I'd say we have a wide experience of the problems.

You say that the Penalty Fare system is open to abuse by the rail companies and believe me, I can see your argument, but the facts are that a growing number of travellers are also abusing the rail system every day. Nationally, there has always been around 3% of travellers avoiding fares. Recent surveys have shown that in some commuter areas that figure has risen to as high as 15%.

Yes, a part of that increase will be people who genuinely couldn't get a ticket on some occasions, but there appears to be a trend toward a generally higher level of fare evasion.

Penalty fares were in part intended to be an aid to re-educating the habitual opportunist fare dodger who only does so because the system allows it. Today it seems that more and more people have found ways to abuse the trust that they will pay their fare. No-one denies that, when justified, the penalty paid also recoups a small part of the money lost.

The private rail companies don't help in many cases and no-one denies that facilities are often very stretched. If there is a staff failure through sickness or, one machine fails etc., they can be inadequate on a particular day. That's not the same as being inadequate every day, which is what too many people would always have us believe.

What are the realistic the alternatives?

Employing more staff for the very brief peak periods and then having to pay them to do nothing for hours on end? BR did that. Who's going to pay for it in the 21st Century?

Paying for more and more self-service machines would certainly help in some places, but that might mean the balance sheet dictates closure of the booking office at some stations. Where does the elderly lady go for advice at off-peak times then? It also means those genuine daily travellers who buy the cheapest ticket will have to go elsewhere to renew their season.

Putting more booking offices & machines in everywhere and then securing access to the whole system would resolve the issue, but that is neither affordable nor desireable. Imagine the length of queues to get onto a platform if we were to return to full barrier turnstiles as in Victorian days. Quite correctly, health and safety considerations would never allow it anyway.

Checking all tickets on every train is the answer, but with current high levels of ridership that isn't practical either and in any case, would require employment of large numbers of ticket inspectors for the peak periods referred to earlier. It is not a practical solution today.

I do not see any evidence of the rail companies commiting wholesale abuse of the Penalty Fares process, but I also do not say occasional mistakes are never made.

Sadly, if as many people put as much effort into buying a ticket when facilities really are available to them as they do in looking for excuses when they don't buy one and then get caught, the system would be a lot better for everyone.

Onlette, I am sorry this is such a long post, but I want to comment on your example too. I really do think that is appalling and cannot believe anyone would think otherwise. Yes, I do think passengers are justified in asking the company to do something about it, but of course saying 'I'll pay on the train' relies on there being someone to on the train to pay. Railways Byelaws make clear that the company can require people to queue and there is no obligation on them to act otherwise.

There are a number of things that the rail company could have considered doing in that situation and 40 minutes would seem excessive to even the most hard-hearted upholder of the rule.

What date did this occur?

Thanks for the comments FARE-COP - I am happy to hear from both sides of the fence on this issue. Unfortunately, I imagine most people on this forum who complain about the current system are not habitual fare dodgers, but are passengers who do make reasonable efforts to purchase tickets before traveling on trains who are caught out (one way or another).

I agree with the reasons that you have cited for the introduction of Penalty Fares, but the application of any such system should also provide passengers with reasonable and accessible opportunities to buy tickets as well as appropriate reporting protocols for when the system doesn't always work (i.e. in busy times or when ticket facilities are not in operation) - as a regular user of trains and stations all over the country, my experience of such systems has been mainly positive, only sometimes negative and generally inconsistent in terms of staffing/discretion/understanding.

As you state - it doesn't always work the way it should 100% of the time due to ticket machines malfunctioning/staff being sick etc. it is in these circumstances that Atlarf's points become perfectly valid (Genuine claimants should have no need to appeal if the train companies have implemented the Penalty Fares scheme properly).

Personally, I would find my journey being held up by 30mins while a ticket officer checked my story was in fact true (and then being let off) as inconvenient as having to accept a standard Penalty Fare for not having a valid ticket; it is not reasonable to use the same procedure in all circumstances, especially with the high levels of ridership you point for being a reason why it is not practical to employ extra ticket inspectors on all trains.

I thought that I had read all of the regulations pertaining to the application of the Penalty Fare scheme; however, I did not come across the section you cite about the waiting times for tickets. Out initial explanation to the issuing ticket officer and my letter to the Independent Appeals Services included details of how long my partner and I queued for a ticket while at out departing station (between 5-10 minutes) but this was not addressed or taken into account either when the ticket was issued or when the appeal response came back. Can anyone tell me whether the reasonable queuing time for tickets section of the guidance is just that (guidance) - or is it an actual requirement?

Altarf

I was not meaning to pick you up for the mistake in your earlier post, but to re-state the point that when a Penalty Fare has not been paid the train operators choose to not pursue people through the civil courts to recover the debt, but to prosecute them.

If they are so sure of their ground, why not take the civil route where when they receive judgement in their favour they can use the court to enforce the debt, rather than prosecute and hope that the Magistrate will award damages?

The example you gave in your earlier post was

FARE-COP wrote: »

I should probably have stuck with saying 5 minutes rather than the actually wording used by a Magistrate to a defendant, which was 'You need to be prepared to wait five or ten minutes and get a ticket in future'.

So you are now saying that the passenger did not have to wait, but the Magistrate spontaneously decided to give advice that if there was a queue in future that they would be expected to wait twice or three times longer than the DoT policy guidelines. Even if it was not relevant in that case, I think the Magistrate made their views very clear and that if a passenger did come up before them and had not waited more than 10 minutes they would be found guilty.

The problem with the system not being perfect is that if it goes wrong the inconvenience to the train operator is zero, but to the inconvenience to an innocent passenger it is a criminal conviction. The train operator has little incentive to actually make the system work. If there was a penalty on the train operator or staff member for each overturned Penalty Fare where it was found that the passenger had been telling the truth and the train company systems had not worked, then they might be more careful about making the system work.

After all the train operator has the option whether or not to introduce a Penalty Fare scheme. It is not compulsory. If they consider that they cannot make the scheme work according to the DoT policy, then they shouldn't introduce it until they can. If fare dodging is running at 15% that should be sufficient incentive to spur them into action. The passenger has no choice in the matter, and cannot opt out of the Penalty Fare scheme if the train operator decides to introduce it but without keeping to the rules.

Interestingly since the introduction of ticket barriers on my line you never see any RPIs on the trains these days (and the trains are Driver Only). I do wonder about the mathematics of paying two staff to stand at the ticket barrier just at my station, let alone the staff stood at the barriers of all the others on the line, between 06:30 to 19:00 for a line that gets two trains an hour.

omelette451

FARE-COP wrote: »

There are a number of things that the rail company could have considered doing in that situation and 40 minutes would seem excessive to even the most hard-hearted upholder of the rule.

What date did this occur?

As far as I remember, and I may be wrong, it was the Sunday of an August Bank Holiday weekend. The date shouldn't really matter though, as imo the company has a duty to provide for however many passengers actually show up. I was lucky, as I got my ticket at the very last minute I was able to wait (having missed 3 trains while stood in the queue!), but I'm not sure what I would have done otherwise. I did write an email to the company afterwards but got an automatic reply saying the website was broken and I should send it by hand but I never bothered. My personal suggestion, which still stands (in case you happen to have any control over Victoria station...) would be to install more ticket machines. There is plenty of room near the existing ones to do so, especially if Network Rail's 'empty concourses' plan is followed through and the shops removed; there are certainly many fewer machines there than there are at, say, Euston, York, Manchester, or many other busy stations round the country. For what it's worth there was definitely someone to pay on the train: the conductor came round checking tickets just before I got off. But I'm still not sure what the response of the station staff would have been if I had offered to do this.

geordieracer

Omlette , i can see your point about having more ticket machines in victoria and io believe that both southern and south eastern are looking to do this.

the main problem Vicotria has is that people turn up every friday say, without fail , without having had the foresight to buy their ticket in advance. So you get everyone going south for a weekend away for whatever reason all at the same time wanting to buy their tickets. You dont do this when you fly off anywhere for your holidays so why do more people not do what they do when they fly and book inadvance.

you can buy a ticket from any rail station in the UK for any journey you want to make even if your not travelling from that station so why do people not do this? You can book online and have them delivered normally free so why not do this?

reduces the queues and reduces the frustration people have when queueing too long.
A little common sense goes a long way when travelling.

and if you really cant buy a ticket due to unstaffed staion which doesnt have any ticekting facilities(the penalty fare rule cannot be applied if no permit to travel machine is not there) then just go see the inspector on the train - the majority will be quite happy to sell you one rather then a fine as they can see your being honest.

DGJsaver

What about this.............



We went to Leighton Buzzard station last saturday (London Midland), we had a rail card and there were three of us , in any case we were due a 1/3 off for the rail card AND/OR a 1/3 off because of travelling in a group

There was 1 window open , and a long queue , have been queing for 10 minutes , they wont open any more windows even though we can see 4 other staff milling about behind the one open window. , trains coming in 2 minutes , lady in front is buying a yearly travel card !! AND the machines there dont account for railcard/group offers

So we get on the train and luckily the lady at Watford lets us use our railcard and pay the 1/3rd off.

Was she right to do so ? because some dont do that we know from experience

setichas

Just to let you all know, but as a ticket inspector currently employed in the London Area, we have been instructed today to start issuing Penalty fares and court reports again after a two days lull due to the weather !! so beware people