Clarification Needed re: Forgotten Young Person's Railcard

Handsome90

I'm pretty sure you are aware that your partner was in the wrong in this case. However, there is no harm in politely asking the CS if they are willing to refund the penalty fare. Alternatively, you could contact Passenger Focus and let them contact Southern in behalf of you. I was in a similar situation as your partner but the train company refunded the penalty fare as a gesture of goodwill.

Altarf

Altarf wrote: »

Or take the other approach that FCC and some others seem quite keen on, which is to proceed with prosecution unless you pay a bribe to the rail company when they will then look the other way and forget about the offence.

yorkie2 wrote: »

Well, I wasn't going to put it like that. But, effectively, yes.

A train operating company has the power to lead to a prosecution.
A train operating company has all the evidence it needs to gain a conviction.
A train operating company decides to accept a £100 "administration fee" not to prosecute.

A police officer has the power to lead to a prosecution.
A police officer has all the evidence it needs to gain a conviction.
A police officer decides to accept £100 cash not to prosecute.

Both the train company and the police officer are accepting the payment as it personally benefits them.

So what is the difference that makes one a bribe and one only "effectively" a bribe?

giraffe69

A train operating company has the power to lead to a prosecution.
A train operating company has all the evidence it needs to gain a conviction.
A train operating company decides to accept a £100 "administration fee" not to prosecute.

A police officer has the power to lead to a prosecution.
A police officer has all the evidence it needs to gain a conviction.
A police officer decides to accept £100 cash not to prosecute.

Both the train company and the police officer are accepting the payment as it personally benefits them.

So what is the difference that makes one a bribe and one only "effectively" a bribe?

I don't think the word "personally" goes with "company" A bribe is a criminal offence. An administration fee charged by a company is not. It also does not lead to gain by a specific individual.

dzug1

The difference is that a train company is not a person and cannot 'personally' benefit

Altarf

dzug1 wrote: »

The difference is that a train company is not a person and cannot 'personally' benefit

You seem to fail to understand that there are two types of person, natural and legal. A company is a legal person.

The legal person that is the train company personally gains from the bribe that they have extracted by threatening prosecution, no different to the corrupt police officer pocketing some cash.

aleph_0

Altarf wrote: »

You seem to fail to understand that there are two types of person, natural and legal. A company is a legal person.

The legal person that is the train company personally gains from the bribe that they have extracted by threatening prosecution, no different to the corrupt police officer pocketing some cash.

The train company loses out financially when someone doesn't travel with a valid ticket. Rather than deal with the issue through prosecution, the train company is offering to settle the matter for a fixed administrative fee.

So, whilst I really don't agree with the systems in place, the system of asking for an administrative penalty is far closer to the concept of a FPN. IANAL, but the administrative fee seems entirely consistent with the aims of the bylaw and I don't think there is an obligation on the railway to prosecute (where as a police officer ignoring evidence wouldn't be doing his legal duty), so I don't think it would legally count as bribery.

That said, I would welcome it if a prosecution showed the law agreed with you. Since hopefully it would force the railways to use a more transparent, better-regulated system.

Altarf

aleph_0 wrote: »

The train company loses out financially when someone doesn't travel with a valid ticket. Rather than deal with the issue through prosecution, the train company is offering to settle the matter for a fixed administrative fee.

Of course any financial loss has only occurred due to the fact that a ticket inspector refused to sell a passenger a ticket when they had the opportunity. If the ticket inspector decided not to sell a ticket, it is because they didn't consider that an honest mistake had been made, but consider that the person without a ticket has committed a criminal act.

If the train company decides that this is not a case that is suitable for prosecution, then rather than trying to recoup their costs from the innocent customer, they should be apologising to them, and sending their employee for retraining.

If the train company does consider that their employee behaved correctly and a criminal act had occurred, then agreeing to forget about it PROVIDED an unspecified amount of money is handed over, is bribery.

aleph_0 wrote: »

So, whilst I really don't agree with the systems in place, the system of asking for an administrative penalty is far closer to the concept of a FPN. IANAL, but the administrative fee seems entirely consistent with the aims of the bylaw and I don't think there is an obligation on the railway to prosecute (where as a police officer ignoring evidence wouldn't be doing his legal duty), so I don't think it would legally count as bribery.

The Penalty Fare rules are subject to strict rules, and a railway company plucking a number out of the air and saying "pay us this and your problems will go away" is in no way analogous.

It is far closer to the dubious parking companies who send invoices for losses, that have no substance in reality, and when challenged in court are invariably rejected.

Quite simply is is demanding money with menaces.

aleph_0 wrote: »

That said, I would welcome it if a prosecution showed the law agreed with you. Since hopefully it would force the railways to use a more transparent, better-regulated system.

It would be interesting if a person reported a train company who was soliciting one of these bribes to the police.