Racism in issuing Penalty Fare Notice

[Dirty_Mac]

The only person who can adequately explain why they decided to issue penalty fares to some people and not others is the person that issued them. None of us were there and only one version and interpretation of events had been presented, so it would be completely inappropriate to suggest anyone behaved in a certain way for a specific reason without knowing what was going through their minds. Of course there is a perception of unfairness, and there’s no harm in raising that as a complaint. However, accusing someone of potentialy criminal discrimination is quite an accusation.

Occam's razor applies here. And if we assume OP is telling the whole story, I don't see any other explanation.

 

[AlterEgo]

The only person who can adequately explain why they decided to issue penalty fares to some people and not others is the person that issued them. None of us were there and only one version and interpretation of events had been presented, so it would be completely inappropriate to suggest anyone behaved in a certain way for a specific reason without knowing what was going through their minds. Of course there is a perception of unfairness, and there’s no harm in raising that as a complaint. However, accusing someone of potentialy criminal discrimination is quite an accusation.

Actually, if the OP genuinely feels they were treated in a racist way they should in fact complain about it in those terms.

I don’t really think it’s up to people who weren’t there to try and dissuade the OP that the racism they felt was present didn’t exist. We weren’t there.

 

[Knoodlepot]

Again contact that company Customer Services with statements from friends. Explain what has happened and ask for the reasonings of that day.
Put it in bullet points the events of that episode as you did in a previous post but add that he let others off before and after you were dealt with.

 

[30907]

Again contact that company Customer Services with statements from friends. Explain what has happened and ask for the reasonings of that day.
Put it in bullet points the events of that episode as you did in a previous post but add that he let others off before and after you were dealt with.

I agree. But this needs treating separately from the PF appeal, because it may be an issue that needs addressing as a staff training or even disciplinary issue, and if it is only handled by the PF appeals team I fear it will not be.

• Compelling reason no. 2 - that there would be no logical reason for you to touch in if you were trying to avoid the fare, since Virginia Water has ticket barriers which are (one would assume) in operation during the bulk of the day, where you would inevitably be "caught"

In an appeal, I doubt this would carry weight - it assumes that the group knew that there were barriers despite not having travelled there before. No harm in trying, admittedly.

 

[Knoodlepot]

I agree. But this needs treating separately from the PF appeal, because it may be an issue that needs addressing as a staff training or even disciplinary issue, and if it is only handled by the PF appeals team I fear it will not be.


In an appeal, I doubt this would carry weight - it assumes that the group knew that there were barriers despite not having travelled there before. No harm in trying, admittedly.

Ah yes I forgot to mention that it should be separate. Lack of coffee this morning the brain awaken has not.

 

[NotDeadYet]

Just because you were charged and other people were not, does not make it definitively racism.

On the facts described it's difficult to believe it was anything else. A group of people made identical journeys, together travelling on the same train and making the same mistake with their ticketing. The tickets were checked at the same time and every member of the group was required to pay the correct fare but only the two non-white members were additionally charged a £100 penalty.

I am old enough to remember the introduction of the first Race Relations Act. Nearly 60 years later reports, stats and anecdotes like this one suggest there is still much to put right.

It can't be pleasant to be in the middle of something like this but I hope @HeyCiao will make a complaint irrespective of the outcome of the appeal because only by challenging this type of behaviour is there any chance of changing it. And, if it is what it looks like then it almost certainly won't be just this one instance.

The Equality Advisory & Support Service (EASS) can give advice on this sort of situation and have a freephone helpline on 0808 800 0082

 

[Titfield]

Whilst this case is about an allegation of discriminatory behaviour based on race it further highlights the issues which can arise of allowing TTIs to have discretion.

One persons discretion can quite easily be in fact unconscious bias that may manifest it self in the behaviour we have seen reported here.

 

[najaB]

On the facts described it's difficult to believe it was anything else.

I agree that the story, as presented, makes a pretty strong case that the revenue protection staff displayed racial bias. But the phrase "as presented" is doing a lot of work in that statement. It's always worth keeping in mind that we only have one side of exactly one incident.

So, to the OP, since you believe that you were targeted because of your race then by all means make a complaint. But this should be dealt with as separate and distinct from the ticketing matter.

 

[pelli]

There were 3 inspectors and some in the group were served by the one that issued the fine.
So not all other people were served by the other two, although both myself and the other lady were served by the same inspector.

In my opinion, the strongest case would be made by focusing on the one inspector that dealt with you: You want to paint a picture of an inspector that processes a line of people that have arrived together in a group, selling "standard" tickets to a number of people, then handing out a Penalty Fare to an East-Asian woman, then selling a few more standard tickets, then Penalty Faring another East-Asian woman, then selling standard tickets to the rest. Talk with your colleagues to establish exactly in which order you were processed by this particular inspector, so you can decribe the order of events accurately (including the specific number of people handled before, between and after the two of you). The fact that two other inspectors handled the rest of the group without handing out any Penalty Fares is also relevant, but not as important.

If the colleagues that were handled by the same inspector have kept their tickets/receipts, you could submit scans of those together with the two Penalty Fares, as they will show the timeline and there should be enough information on them for the Train Operating Company to confirm that they were processed by the same inspector. If you are unable to submit tickets/receipts from your colleagues, you could ask the Train Operating Company to look up this information themselves - given the time of the incident written on your Penalty Fare, they should be able to identify any other transactions the particular inspector made before and after.

By the way, how large was the group in total? Did the inspectors take everyone's details before selling them a ticket, or was it just the two of you that got details taken for the Penalty Fare?

 

[Iskra]

On the facts described it's difficult to believe it was anything else. A group of people made identical journeys, together travelling on the same train and making the same mistake with their ticketing. The tickets were checked at the same time and every member of the group was required to pay the correct fare but only the two non-white members were additionally charged a £100 penalty.

I am old enough to remember the introduction of the first Race Relations Act. Nearly 60 years later reports, stats and anecdotes like this one suggest there is still much to put right.

It can't be pleasant to be in the middle of something like this but I hope @HeyCiao will make a complaint irrespective of the outcome of the appeal because only by challenging this type of behaviour is there any chance of changing it. And, if it is what it looks like then it almost certainly won't be just this one instance.

The Equality Advisory & Support Service (EASS) can give advice on this sort of situation and have a freephone helpline on 0808 800 0082

It wasn’t the same ticket inspector (TI) dealing with each person though, if it was then I’d agree. I’m not sure quite what the contracts of TI’s are, but it’s possible it was driven by economics instead (do they get commission, or was that particular TI well short of their target for the week). There are plentiful alternative explanations.

 

[Dirty_Mac]

It wasn’t the same ticket inspector (TI) dealing with each person though, if it was then I’d agree. I’m not sure quite what the contracts of TI’s are, but it’s possible it was driven by economics instead (do they get commission, or was that particular TI well short of their target for the week). There are plentiful alternative explanations.

None of that explains why other white members of the group didn't get fined by the same TI!

 

[Iskra]

None of that explains why other white members of the group didn't get fined by the same TI!

Because they were dealt with simultaneously by other TI’s. It’s possible that if the one TI dealt with everyone, they’d have fined everyone.

There are lots of possible reasonable explanations and it’s also possible the TOC has received an explanation, or the other TI’s have been asked why they didn’t fine everyone.

 

[Knoodlepot]

Because they were dealt with simultaneously by other TI’s. It’s possible that if the one TI dealt with everyone, they’d have fined everyone.

There are lots of possible reasonable explanations and it’s also possible the TOC has received an explanation, or the other TI’s have been asked why they didn’t fine everyone.

But the OP stated that the one RPI that dealt with her and the other lady that was PFd also allowed people before and after to buy a ticket.
So he picked and chose who to PF and not.

 

[NotDeadYet]

It wasn’t the same ticket inspector (TI) dealing with each person though, if it was then I’d agree.

It is my interpretation of post 23 that the same TI did deal with some white members of the group and did not impose the £100 penalty on them.

 

[Wolfie]

It is my interpretation of post 23 that the same TI did deal with some white members of the group and did not impose the £100 penalty on them.

That is exactly how l interpreted what has been posted.

 

[Iskra]

It is my interpretation of post 23 that the same TI did deal with some white members of the group and did not impose the £100 penalty on them.

Sorry, I hadn’t read post 23, only the OP and a few after that.

Regardless, it’s going to be impossible to prove racism is the motive, however probable, so it’s all something of a waste of time discussing it. @Watershed has posted the best way of a successful appeal, speculation on motivations is all just pointless and there is still a possibility however slim, that there was a justification for the way the TI handled it, which is an internal matter really. I do agree with the poster who said TI’s shouldn’t have discretion (although that may cause difficulties) and discretion should be exercised by office staff later on where the fines could be anonymised for processing.

 

[najaB]

Regardless, it’s going to be impossible to prove racism is the motive, however probable, so it’s all something of a waste of time discussing it.

It would be impossible for me to disagree any more strongly. The only way to combat prejudice and discrimination is to highlight it.

@Watershed has posted the best way of a successful appeal, speculation on motivations is all just pointless and there is still a possibility however slim, that there was a justification for the way the TI handled it, which is an internal matter really.

Yes, that is likely the best approach for appealing the Penalty Fare, but that doesn't mean that the perceived racism should be ignored. The OP believes that they were targeted because of race, so they should make a customer services complaint about it.

 

[Wolfie]

Sorry, I hadn’t read post 23, only the OP and a few after that.

Regardless, it’s going to be impossible to prove racism is the motive, however probable, so it’s all something of a waste of time discussing it. @Watershed has posted the best way of a successful appeal, speculation on motivations is all just pointless and there is still a possibility however slim, that there was a justification for the way the TI handled it, which is an internal matter really. I do agree with the poster who said TI’s shouldn’t have discretion (although that may cause difficulties) and discretion should be exercised by office staff later on where the fines could be anonymised for processing.

Racism is an internal matter? Really? Tell that to the police among other bodies....

Hmmm, time for the railway to be subject to a full Equality Commission probe then we will see how 'internal' it is!

Methinks that you have missed rather a lot of primary legislation.

 

[Knoodlepot]

Sorry, I hadn’t read post 23, only the OP and a few after that.

Regardless, it’s going to be impossible to prove racism is the motive, however probable, so it’s all something of a waste of time discussing it. @Watershed has posted the best way of a successful appeal, speculation on motivations is all just pointless and there is still a possibility however slim, that there was a justification for the way the TI handled it, which is an internal matter really. I do agree with the poster who said TI’s shouldn’t have discretion (although that may cause difficulties) and discretion should be exercised by office staff later on where the fines could be anonymised for processing.

Totally disagree with this.
It most definitely should not be an internal matter. If police were called they wouldn't say "This is an internal matter".

It should be used in the third appeal as well as the other evidence. He PFd her and another East Asian and let others pay him. Not the other RPIs/TI he did that. Before and after PFing OP. What good reason would he have to do that?

And along with the appeal contact Customer Services.

CCTV might show that OP lied and did cause a ruckus with the other Eastern Asian lady.
Or it'll show he picked those teo between dealing with others and PFd them only.

 

[najaB]

It should be used in the third appeal as well as the other evidence. He PFd her and another East Asian and let others pay him. Not the other RPIs/TI he did that. Before and after PFing OP. What good reason would he have to do that?

And along with the appeal contact Customer Services.

If it were me I would take a different tack. There is sufficient grounds to appeal the Penalty Fare on its own merit without making reference to the perceived racism, so it should be appealed on those grounds without mentioning anything about racial bias, which can be the basis of a customer services complaint.

The reason I suggest this is because upholding an appeal that's based on claimed racism requires the TOC to admit to the racism, so it would be easier and simpler for them to just deny the appeal without addressing any racial aspect: "The passenger did not present a ticket, so issuing a penalty fare was an appropriate course of action". A customer services complaint will be be handled separately by a different team, and who won't hopefully won't be as inclined to dismiss the complaint offhand or, at the very least, will have to address the issue directly.

 

[MotCO]

If it were me I would take a different tack. There is sufficient grounds to appeal the Penalty Fare on its own merit without making reference to the perceived racism, so it should be appealed on those grounds without mentioning anything about racial bias, which can be the basis of a customer services complaint.

The reason I suggest this is because upholding an appeal that's based on claimed racism requires the TOC to admit to the racism, so it would be easier and simpler for them to just deny the appeal without addressing any racial aspect: "The passenger did not present a ticket, so issuing a penalty fare was an appropriate course of action". A customer services complaint will be be handled separately by a different team, and who won't hopefully won't be as inclined to dismiss the complaint offhand or, at the very least, will have to address the issue directly.

I'm inclined to agree with this approach but possibly for different reasons (1). As soon as 'Racism' is raised as an issue, there will probably be red alarms being sounded, and this element will be carefully handled, probably by doubling down on that it was not racist and the appeal will be rejected.

Keeping the racist element out of this, and focussing on a technical appeal re the lack of PF notices, could be more fruitful. Once this is settled, by all means proceed with the racist claim.

(1) On rereading my post, I think I am saying the same as @najaB but usng different words.

 

[najaB]

(1) On rereading my post, I think I am saying the same as @najaB but usng different words

Indeed, we're basically making the same point.

 

[Iskra]

Totally disagree with this.
It most definitely should not be an internal matter. If police were

I'm inclined to agree with this approach but possibly for different reasons (1). As soon as 'Racism' is raised as an issue, there will probably be red alarms being sounded, and this element will be carefully handled, probably by doubling down on that it was not racist and the appeal will be rejected.

Keeping the racist element out of this, and focussing on a technical appeal re the lack of PF notices, could be more fruitful. Once this is settled, by all means proceed with the racist claim.

(1) On rereading my post, I think I am saying the same as @najaB but usng different words.

Lofty idealism aside, TI’s probably get allegations made against them all the time, so it will just come down to the ‘black and white’ of the ticketing situation, which is clearly a legitimate decision unless Watershed’s appeal process is used.

The only person who truly knows whether racism was the motive, is the TI involved and they are unlikely to admit that that was the case, hence why I believe it to be a fruitless pursuit.

 

[najaB]

Lofty idealism aside...

I can't be the only person who thinks that equal treatment under the law isn't 'lofty idealism', right?

The only person who truly knows whether racism was the motive, is the TI involved and they are unlikely to admit that that was the case, hence why I believe it to be a fruitless pursuit.

As the grounds for a Penalty Fare appeal, perhaps. But the matter, as described to us, is definitely worthy of raising a complaint.

 

[Iskra]

I can't be the only person who thinks that equal treatment under the law isn't 'lofty idealism', right?

As the grounds for a Penalty Fare appeal, perhaps. But the matter, as described to us, is definitely worthy of raising a complaint.

Theoretically, possibly. But personally, I don’t think it’s worth the energy and time to write one, for what will probably result in a generic copy and paste email response, and nothing else happening and no dropping of the Fine.

That time and energy would be much better invested in following Watersheds advice, without mentioning anything about racism, however uncomfortable that feels and would be much more likely to end with a tangible result.

 

[Knoodlepot]

Lofty idealism aside, TI’s probably get allegations made against them all the time, so it will just come down to the ‘black and white’ of the ticketing situation, which is clearly a legitimate decision unless Watershed’s appeal process is used.

The only person who truly knows whether racism was the motive, is the TI involved and they are unlikely to admit that that was the case, hence why I believe it to be a fruitless pursuit.

Yes we do get accused of this all the time.
You mitigate it by being fair to all.
If he PFd the others as well then I'd agree he is someone that sticks to the regulations. But he didn't that chap only PFd two East Asian ladies.
He allowed the others pay him the fare and not be PFd.
If he was in my team and I saw that I'd make a complaint myself. He might have other complaints.
When is it ever not fruitless to you?
What other reason does he have to PF them two but allow others to just pay the fare?

It will be investigated if the OP puts a complaint in. There is no waste of time or energy to do so.

My company investigates every complaint. We have to explain the reasons, Bodyworn is check so are CCTV at the stations. The passenger and witnesses are also interviewed and I doubt my company is the only one that does this.

 

[najaB]

That time and energy would be much better invested in following Watersheds advice, without mentioning anything about racism, however uncomfortable that feels and would be much more likely to end with a tangible result.

For at least the third time: the suggestion is to lodge the penalty fare appeal on the technical grounds, and raise a completely separate complaint to Customer Services about the perceived rascism.

 

[Iskra]

For at least the third time: the suggestion is to lodge the penalty fare appeal on the technical grounds, and raise a completely separate complaint to Customer Services about the perceived rascism.

Yes, I acknowledged what you said, when I said it’s not worth the time to write one for a copy and paste response.

Yes we do get accused of this all the time.
You mitigate it by being fair to all.
If he PFd the others as well then I'd agree he is someone that sticks to the regulations. But he didn't that chap only PFd two East Asian ladies.
He allowed the others pay him the fare and not be PFd.
If he was in my team and I saw that I'd make a complaint myself. He might have other complaints.
When is it ever not fruitless to you?
What other reason does he have to PF them two but allow others to just pay the fare?

It will be investigated if the OP puts a complaint in. There is no waste of time or energy to do so.

My company investigates every complaint. We have to explain the reasons, Bodyworn is check so are CCTV at the stations. The passenger and witnesses are also interviewed and I doubt my company is the only one that does this.

Interesting and worth bearing in mind that everything you’ve said there is ‘allegedly’ and we only have one side of the story.

 

[najaB]

Yes, I acknowledged what you said, when I said it’s not worth the time to write one for a copy and paste response.

That isn't how your post reads.

Theoretically, possibly. But personally, I don’t think it’s worth the energy and time to write one, for what will probably result in a generic copy and paste email response, and nothing else happening and no dropping of the Fine.

The complaint to Customer Services wouldn't have anything to do with appealing the penalty fare (not fine).

And, in any case, if people have your "not worth the time" attitude then the RPI will never get pulled up on their behaviour.

 

[Knoodlepot]

Yes, I acknowledged what you said, when I said it’s not worth the time to write one for a copy and paste response.


Interesting and worth bearing in mind that everything you’ve said there is ‘allegedly’ and we only have one side of the story.

Yes, and that's why you put a complaint in and the company investigates and gets the RPIs side of the story

It will always be alleged until a formal investigation happens.