Retrospective prosecution for fare evasion - has it been successful in court yet?

[BRX]

But theres no way of making an out of court settlement for motoring offences. That's why I maintain that the railways are more lenient when it comes to fare evaders.

The process for fare evasion is threat of prosecution, some anxiety about this for some period of time and then a possibly large financial penalty, essentially whatever the train company decides to ask for.

On the other hand if you are caught speeding it's a fairly routine process, a fixed financial penalty, some points on your license and then carry on as you were.

I don't agree that the railway process is the lenient one.

Parking without a ticket is perhaps more directly comparable to fare evasion. Not putting anyone in danger as such - just taking a gamble on getting away with not paying for something. Again, the penalty is routine and there's no threat of a criminal conviction, even if (as far as I know) you do it repeatedly and deliberately. This seems lenient compared to the consequences of dodging a rail fare that may be priced at a similar amount of money.

 

[Krokodil]

But theres no way of making an out of court settlement for motoring offences.

What do you think FPNs are in practice? They're an offer to pay a fee to make the issue go away.

Morally - less money grabbing as well, more teaching them the error of their ways (hopefully !).

Perhaps there should be "fare evasion awareness" courses.

I don't agree that the railway process is the lenient one.

I certainly agree that motoring offences aren't treated as seriously as they ought to be.

 

[Hadders]

But theres no way of making an out of court settlement for motoring offences. That's why I maintain that the railways are more lenient when it comes to fare evaders.

A Fixed Penalty Notice keeps the matter out of court!

 

[6Gman]

Thinking more about this, it's the basic threat of a criminal conviction that the TOCs can leverage - to some extent the number of offences doesn't affect that but if they can make someone believe they have evidence of multiple offences then they can extract a higher out of court settlement from them. It becomes a trade-off for the accused of what they'd prefer: a large financial penalty or the possibility of a smaller penalty but accompanied by the criminal record. This also applies to anyone caught when genuinely making a mistake, rather than deliberately evading.

This, the threat of the criminal record is what I think I object to, or feel is unequal when compared with how motoring offences are dealt with.

That's partly because in my opinion, things like dangerous driving are much more harmful at a societal level than fare evasion is.

Yes, and dangerous driving can see you packed off to jail.

How often does that happen to fare evaders?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I don't think you can compare large scale deliberate fraud with a speeding ticket?

Indeed not. In the UK, over 200 people are killed in collisions every year involving a driver exceeding the speed limit. I don't think any people have been killed as a result of fraud perpetuated on Chiltern Railways. You're right, there's no comparison between the two.

 

[Dai Corner]

Ok I take the point about fixed penalty notices keeping the offence out of court, but they still result in points on your licence which will be taken into account when calculating insurance premiums and, if accumulated, can result in disqualification or, for professional drivers, job loss.

I think attendance at speed awareness courses is taken into account by some insurers too.

Indeed not. In the UK, over 200 people are killed in collisions every year involving a driver exceeding the speed limit. I don't think any people have been killed as a result of fraud perpetuated on Chiltern Railways. You're right, there's no comparison between the two.

That'll be why causing death by careless or dangerous driving will likely result in a prison sentence while fare evasion doesn't.

 

[BRX]

Yes, and dangerous driving can see you packed off to jail.

How often does that happen to fare evaders?

You have to engage in especially dangerous driving to get packed off to jail, and even then it's not guaranteed. Regular dangerous driving, like speeding in residential areas, just gets you a mild ticking off, in the unlikely event that you are even caught in the first place.

 

[Krokodil]

You have to engage in especially dangerous driving to get packed off to jail, and even then it's not guaranteed. Regular dangerous driving, like speeding in residential areas, just gets you a mild ticking off, in the unlikely event that you are even caught in the first place.

What point are you trying to make?

Are you trying to say:

a) driving offences aren't taken seriously enough
or
b) fare evasion is taken too seriously

 

[yorkie]

What point are you trying to make?

Are you trying to say:

a) driving offences aren't taken seriously enough
or
b) fare evasion is taken too seriously

Certainly the former is very true.

The latter can be true but depends on both the TOC and what you consider 'fare evasion' to consist of, especially as some TOCs treat people who had no intent of wrongdoing as if they were fare evaders.

Indeed not. In the UK, over 200 people are killed in collisions every year involving a driver exceeding the speed limit. I don't think any people have been killed as a result of fraud perpetuated on Chiltern Railways. You're right, there's no comparison between the two.

Indeed.

 

[Hadders]

On fare evasion, while too harsh a line is taken in many cases we do see cases of industrial fare evasion, (eg doughnutting) that really should result in a court appearance, yet the offender is often allowed to pay an out of court settlement.

That doesn’t seem right to me.

 

[Dai Corner]

On fare evasion, while too harsh a line is taken in many cases we do see cases of industrial fare evasion, (eg doughnutting) that really should result in a court appearance, yet the offender is often allowed to pay an out of court settlement.

That doesn’t seem right to me.

Agreed.

A motoring equivalent might be driving without insurance or MOT. Those will result result in prosecution, fine and criminal record with no opportunity to settle out of court.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed.

A motoring equivalent might be driving without insurance or MOT. Those will result result in prosecution, fine and criminal record with no opportunity to settle out of court.

In reality rail fare evasion (of the casual kind, i.e. just not paying unless challenged) is more like car parking in terms of seriousness and magnitude*, and that's decriminalised. Hence why I often call for decriminalisation of fare evasion. The Fraud Act still exists for very serious stuff.

* OK, short distance fares are, but most fare evasion will be short distance, as you've got more chance of getting caught if you try to hide in the bog from Kings Cross to Inverness.

 

[jacksonbang]

It's a perception issue. If someone can have the wrong ticket for 2 years and get caught once then no-one is taking ticketless travel seriously. There's a point where the railway companies need to police the system correctly. Spend an hour at Hastings station - there are 2/3 security guards on the barrier along with staff. It's amazing how many they let through without a ticket anyway. Apparently crying and having a uncharged phone works wonders.

 

[Peter Sarf]

On fare evasion, while too harsh a line is taken in many cases we do see cases of industrial fare evasion, (eg doughnutting) that really should result in a court appearance, yet the offender is often allowed to pay an out of court settlement.

That doesn’t seem right to me.

I agree.

Agreed.

A motoring equivalent might be driving without insurance or MOT. Those will result result in prosecution, fine and criminal record with no opportunity to settle out of court.

That is a good analogy. Shows someone setting out with the intention of avoiding paying their way.

OK could be a slip up on insurance renewal and I nearly did drive on an expired MOT once - got no reminders but luckily had a hunch.

It's a perception issue. If someone can have the wrong ticket for 2 years and get caught once then no-one is taking ticketless travel seriously. There's a point where the railway companies need to police the system correctly. Spend an hour at Hastings station - there are 2/3 security guards on the barrier along with staff. It's amazing how many they let through without a ticket anyway. Apparently crying and having a uncharged phone works wonders.

I agree catching fare dodgers more often allows the build up of a pattern.

Getting id from people even with any plausible excuse would allow a pattern to be established - if a pattern is there.

Watching people at West Hampstead Thameslink for an hour or so I saw one after another forcing the gates open. This says to me no one cares and the people buying a ticket are going to feel like mugs.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I was very taken aback at Barking station last week how many older teenage schoolchildren were tailgating someone or just forcing their way through whilst 3 security guards and two other members of staff stood nearby with complete disinterest. I stopped someone tailgating me by stopping as soon as I had walked through blocking his way, but he was through within the minute. If TfL want to increase revenue, there's an obvious route, as they are already employing staff who are just not doing their job.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I was very taken aback at Barking station last week how many older teenage schoolchildren were tailgating someone or just forcing their way through whilst 3 security guards and two other members of staff stood nearby with complete disinterest. I stopped someone tailgating me by stopping as soon as I had walked through blocking his way, but he was through within the minute. If TfL want to increase revenue, there's an obvious route, as they are already employing staff who are just not doing their job.

Yes, I have even seen a staff member quite obviously turn a blind eye.

 

[BRX]

What point are you trying to make?

Are you trying to say:

a) driving offences aren't taken seriously enough
or
b) fare evasion is taken too seriously

I've gone astray a bit from the question I asked in my OP.

But - yes I think driving offences in general aren't taken seriously enough.

I feel that's especially apparent when you compare the way driving offences are dealt with, with the way rail fare evasion is dealt with.

Do I think fare evasion is taken too seriously? I guess I think that it could be dealt with in a better way. Specifically I don't really think it should be a criminal offence unless it's persistent.

What seems to happen currently is that a relatively small portion of fare evaders are dealt with quite aggressively, while lots get away with it. Of course the idea is to send a deterrent message to passengers in general but to me this seems a bit unfair to those who happen to get caught and who may not do it habitually or may have genuinely made an error. I see various threads in this forum where it looks like the measures taken against the person are disproportionate, because they are threatened with criminal prosecution and this can cause a lot of stress and anxiety even if it's eventually settled out of court.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I've gone astray a bit from the question I asked in my OP.

But - yes I think driving offences in general aren't taken seriously enough.

I feel that's especially apparent when you compare the way driving offences are dealt with, with the way rail fare evasion is dealt with.

Do I think fare evasion is taken too seriously? I guess I think that it could be dealt with in a better way. Specifically I don't really think it should be a criminal offence unless it's persistent.

What seems to happen currently is that a relatively small portion of fare evaders are dealt with quite aggressively, while lots get away with it. Of course the idea is to send a deterrent message to passengers in general but to me this seems a bit unfair to those who happen to get caught and who may not do it habitually or may have genuinely made an error. I see various threads in this forum where it looks like the measures taken against the person are disproportionate, because they are threatened with criminal prosecution and this can cause a lot of stress and anxiety even if it's eventually settled out of court.

Lets work on different levels of fare evasion.

1) There is the persistent fare dodging (doughnutting, paying only when challenged or perhaps re-using a ticket). The threat of a criminal record probably would wake up many of these as its likely they have a regular travel pattern (ie commuting) so a job to lose.

EDIT
1b) Paying on the train only when confronted by a staff member. I remember (mid 1990s) seeing this a lot between stations beyond Clapham Junction and Thames Ditton. Usually commuters and the same ones every time (I worked with one of them who probably thought I was a mug).
EDIT-end

2) The feral activity of forcing gates open or tailgating. For these it is a simple case of denying them access as I doubt they have the means to pay a fine and might already have a criminal record or don't care if they do get one.

3) The once in a blue moon error committed by an otherwise honest person. It disgusts me if these kind of people get treated badly especially by a TOC that cannot or will-not put its own house in order.

4) I remember when using Oyster pre-pay and getting extra charges usually due to a mistake (forgetting to touch in/out at an un-brriered station), twice due to touching out on a non-barrier-ed reader as someone else did - impossible to know if I had successfully touched out or not, most common was hanging around on a station for too long as you do or making a tortuous journey neglecting to touch in/out or pink on the way. You can claim it back but not easy when out for the day and two mistakes leads to the cap not working - I once got through around £30 that way. But its the annoyance of being treated as guilty until proved innocent. My over 60s Oyster does not have that problem of course.

How dishonest was the persistent use of P-coding by TOCs ?.

Now I will throw in another offence to compare with - Fly tipping.
I love the action of impounding the offenders van. Its something that adversely affects the environment and so other people. Thoughts ?.

 

[jacksonbang]

I'm not sure they could be very successful with retrospective fare evasion - ultimately it just shows up how inept the train companies are at collecting fares.

 

[BRX]

The TfL system I find ok - if you forget to touch in or out (and get charged a maximum journey fare as a result), you can go online and reclaim, and for me this generally works fine, they seem to trust that it's honest and presumably that changes if you start doing it too often.

If you forget to touch in, and a revenue team appears on the train, as I understand it, they check your contactless/oyster card, they don't actually know at that moment whether you're travelling with a valid touch-in, but the info is sent back to the system and I think it will chase you up, but again there is some kind of allowance that you can be let off doing this once (not sure if that's once ever, or per year or what?).

This whole approach of course depends on you being registered on the system, and that's not something that exists on National Rail. If, some day, national rail travel starts using a similar system, where you have a registered card/identity, then perhaps a fairer approach to fare dodging could be more easily implemented, where you are given the benefit of the doubt for a limited number of instances. That would mean that innocent mistakes could go unpunished, but persistent abusers wouldn't be able to take advantage. Of course you could only benefit from that if you willingly opted in to the system, but that's the same with TfL.

 

[swt_passenger]

If you forget to touch in, and a revenue team appears on the train, as I understand it, they check your contactless/oyster card, they don't actually know at that moment whether you're travelling with a valid touch-in, but the info is sent back to the system and I think it will chase you up, but again there is some kind of allowance that you can be let off doing this once (not sure if that's once ever, or per year or what?).

Two different scenarios exist here though, if they check a traditional Oyster card they will immediately know if you’re not yet touched in, as that history is written to the card, and you will probably incur at least a Penalty fare.

It is correct to note that they don’t know during a revenue check if a contactless card is touched in, that is what needs a back office check later.

 

[BostonGeorge]

I'll tell you something that happened to me because it may be of interest to you. I lived in Huntingdon, worked in London. Sometimes I chose to drive, sometimes I chose to take the train. A couple of years after commuting in, I got completely sick to death of it, and started staying at my mother's house in North London and travelling back to Huntingdon sparingly (again, sometimes by car, sometimes by train). I was once caught without a ticket (entirely my fault - I boarded the train because I was running late and intended to buy a ticket on board the train on my laptop). I made the purchase of an off-peak single from Huntingdon to Finsbury Park (anybody who knows anything about this particularly ticket will be aware it can ONLY be collected - there is no e-ticket option). I stupidly assumed this would be satisfactory for any ticket check). I was wrong and the man reported me for prosecution, which I thought was a little much, but meh, I thought it would be a fairly straightforward case of explaining I was in a rush, and I did what I could to purchase a ticket ASAP.

Unfortunately, this report for prosecution opened up a whole can of worms into my travel history. My address being in Huntingdon, my place of work being in London, and increasingly infrequent tickets purchased compared to previous years (being a regular e-ticket purchaser was to my detriment, it transpired, and I genuinely believe I wouldn't have been treated in this way if I was an entirely paper ticket user from the get-go).

After some persistence in attempting to prosecute me for long-term fare evasion, I was able to provide them with my contactless bank card journey history, which proved I was travelling to and from my mother's house with enormous frequency. This dragged on for a couple of months, and I was shocked to the extent they were attempting to reach to attempt to pin something on me that wasn't there. I was ONLY able to shut them down by providing evidence of my own which blew their assumptions out of the water. I honestly felt like I had NO presumption of innocence.

In essence, these aren't nice people.

 

[BingMan]

Indeed drawing conclusions or making assumptions can be fraught with difficulties and subject to challenge but I think it would be a brave person who in court alleged that they purchased tickets without intending to use them or purchased them for a third party (whose use was legitimate) without providing corroborating evidence.

A friend of mine lives in Chinley but buys tickets from New Mills Central. His wife works in Hayfield and gives him a lift to NMC on her way there.
There must be lots of similar cases which are prima facae suspicious but which have an innocent explanation

 

[Kite159]

It will depend on the scale & value.

For example if someone has a history of using eTickets between London Bridge & Blackfriars (for example) where there is no entry scan (and no exit scan on the return) getting caught with an address away from London where the station doesn't have barriers then is it wrong for the TOC to go down the fraud route?

 

[BRX]

I'll tell you something that happened to me because it may be of interest to you. I lived in Huntingdon, worked in London. Sometimes I chose to drive, sometimes I chose to take the train. A couple of years after commuting in, I got completely sick to death of it, and started staying at my mother's house in North London and travelling back to Huntingdon sparingly (again, sometimes by car, sometimes by train). I was once caught without a ticket (entirely my fault - I boarded the train because I was running late and intended to buy a ticket on board the train on my laptop). I made the purchase of an off-peak single from Huntingdon to Finsbury Park (anybody who knows anything about this particularly ticket will be aware it can ONLY be collected - there is no e-ticket option). I stupidly assumed this would be satisfactory for any ticket check). I was wrong and the man reported me for prosecution, which I thought was a little much, but meh, I thought it would be a fairly straightforward case of explaining I was in a rush, and I did what I could to purchase a ticket ASAP.

Unfortunately, this report for prosecution opened up a whole can of worms into my travel history. My address being in Huntingdon, my place of work being in London, and increasingly infrequent tickets purchased compared to previous years (being a regular e-ticket purchaser was to my detriment, it transpired, and I genuinely believe I wouldn't have been treated in this way if I was an entirely paper ticket user from the get-go).

After some persistence in attempting to prosecute me for long-term fare evasion, I was able to provide them with my contactless bank card journey history, which proved I was travelling to and from my mother's house with enormous frequency. This dragged on for a couple of months, and I was shocked to the extent they were attempting to reach to attempt to pin something on me that wasn't there. I was ONLY able to shut them down by providing evidence of my own which blew their assumptions out of the water. I honestly felt like I had NO presumption of innocence.

In essence, these aren't nice people.

It does seem somehow intrusive to start going into your purchase histories without there being something very specific to suggest that you have been engaging in long term evasion.

If someone is caught shoplifting at Tesco it doesn't give Tesco the right to go and search their house to see if they've got anything there they can't prove they paid for in the past.

What purchase history did they look at - was it via an account that you had directly with the TOC who were pursuing you for prosecution? Or was it via third-party ticket sellers like trainline/other TOCs?

Do TOCs automatically have authority to request purchase history details from all ticket-selling agencies that you might have dealings with? I'd have thought this might end up in a GDPR minefield.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I'll tell you something that happened to me because it may be of interest to you. I lived in Huntingdon, worked in London. Sometimes I chose to drive, sometimes I chose to take the train. A couple of years after commuting in, I got completely sick to death of it, and started staying at my mother's house in North London and travelling back to Huntingdon sparingly (again, sometimes by car, sometimes by train). I was once caught without a ticket (entirely my fault - I boarded the train because I was running late and intended to buy a ticket on board the train on my laptop). I made the purchase of an off-peak single from Huntingdon to Finsbury Park (anybody who knows anything about this particularly ticket will be aware it can ONLY be collected - there is no e-ticket option). I stupidly assumed this would be satisfactory for any ticket check). I was wrong and the man reported me for prosecution, which I thought was a little much, but meh, I thought it would be a fairly straightforward case of explaining I was in a rush, and I did what I could to purchase a ticket ASAP.

Unfortunately, this report for prosecution opened up a whole can of worms into my travel history. My address being in Huntingdon, my place of work being in London, and increasingly infrequent tickets purchased compared to previous years (being a regular e-ticket purchaser was to my detriment, it transpired, and I genuinely believe I wouldn't have been treated in this way if I was an entirely paper ticket user from the get-go).

After some persistence in attempting to prosecute me for long-term fare evasion, I was able to provide them with my contactless bank card journey history, which proved I was travelling to and from my mother's house with enormous frequency. This dragged on for a couple of months, and I was shocked to the extent they were attempting to reach to attempt to pin something on me that wasn't there. I was ONLY able to shut them down by providing evidence of my own which blew their assumptions out of the water. I honestly felt like I had NO presumption of innocence.

In essence, these aren't nice people.

A friend of mine lives in Chinley but buys tickets from New Mills Central. His wife works in Hayfield and gives him a lift to NMC on her way there.
There must be lots of similar cases which are prima facae suspicious but which have an innocent explanation

It will depend on the scale & value.

For example if someone has a history of using eTickets between London Bridge & Blackfriars (for example) where there is no entry scan (and no exit scan on the return) getting caught with an address away from London where the station doesn't have barriers then is it wrong for the TOC to go down the fraud route?

I think the moral of the story (and it is my vague approach) is don't trust the TOCs. So I aim (quite unreliably) to keep receipts or such like that could prove my actions or location at a future date. Basically big brother is watching you so get used to it and be prepared to counter their selective use of the evidence.

I have found the staff on the front line are far more likely to be understanding than those in a back office appear to be.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I'd have thought this might end up in a GDPR minefield.

I know that the law is more complicated than this, but my understanding is that in practice there are GDPR exemptions for the detection of crime

 

[Peter Sarf]

It does seem somehow intrusive to start going into your purchase histories without there being something very specific to suggest that you have been engaging in long term evasion.

If someone is caught shoplifting at Tesco it doesn't give Tesco the right to go and search their house to see if they've got anything there they can't prove they paid for in the past.

What purchase history did they look at - was it via an account that you had directly with the TOC who were pursuing you for prosecution? Or was it via third-party ticket sellers like trainline/other TOCs?

Do TOCs automatically have authority to request purchase history details from all ticket-selling agencies that you might have dealings with? I'd have thought this might end up in a GDPR minefield.

I expect you agree to the terms and conditions of the ticket selling site when you use it or register an account with them.

I know that the law is more complicated than this, but my understanding is that in practice there are GDPR exemptions for the detection of crime

I think there is a lot more right to access of personal data (eg bank statements) for the purposes of gathering evidence once a specific crime is detected rather than just looking on the off chance. Trouble is there is a risk that the person(s) trying to nail you are unlikely to take into account data that disproves what they want to prove.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I think there is a lot more right to access of personal data (eg bank statements) for the purposes of gathering evidence once a specific crime is detected rather than just looking on the off chance. Trouble is there is a risk that the person(s) trying to nail you are unlikely to take into account data that disproves what they want to prove.

I'd expect the law to be written on the basis of 'suspicion' rather than proof: if Inspector Clouseau* already knows that you have committed a crime, why would he need further evidence? Instead, he needs it if he suspects you of a crime so that he can prove (or disprove) his point.

*Assuming the good inspector to be working under British rather than French law.

 

[Haywain]

I'd expect the law to be written on the basis of 'suspicion' rather than proof: if Inspector Clouseau* already knows that you have committed a crime, why would he need further evidence? Instead, he needs it if he suspects you of a crime so that he can prove (or disprove) his point.

Because policing doesn't work like that. If they catch someone committing a crime they don't just leave it at that, they investigate whether other crimes have been committed.