31 people fined for boarding a train in the South West without a valid ticket

[najaB]

My understanding is that TOCs tend to win if you simply fail to turn up because if they say the ticket wasn't being used on a permitted route this will generally be accepted as true, even though someone who understands the Routeing guide knows it isn't true.

Your conclusion is correct, but the reasoning that lead there is a little suspect. It isn't that the Court doesn't apply the routeing guide correctly, they don't apply it at all. Not presenting a defence is treated the same as pleading no contest so no evidence is examined. That's why we advise posters to attend court when they reach a settlement after a summons has been issued.

It is good to see people being caught for this, but some of these fines seem rather large and inconsistent compared to the punishments that career criminals get for persistent crime. It looks like fare dodgers are seen as a cash cow.

Had they turned up it's entirely likely that the fine would have been smaller.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Out of interest, do we know for certain the customers did not have valid tickets?

As a retailer yourself, you are well aware that some companies employ staff who, on occasion, may incorrectly state that a valid ticket is not valid.


In the case of GWR, a forum member was told by many staff at Paddington that his ticket was not valid and was treated as a potential criminal, customer services kept saying his ticket was not valid, and it took many months and intervention by the retailer contacting GWR at a higher level before GWR finally admitted that the customer did, in fact, have a valid ticket.

While I accept that in the cases cited in this thread it is more likely than not that each of the cases did involve no valid ticket being held, here is absolutely no way that we can be certain that every case of GWR claiming a customer did not have a valid ticket is definitely correct unless we independently view the facts for ourselves.

I'm also aware of half a dozen recent cases of GWR alleging that valid ticket holders did not hold valid tickets, and I've witnessed such false allegations at locations such as Paddington myself.

I think the problem here as others have commented on is an automatic assumption that the TOC must always be wrong. Your calling it as you see it - the trouble is the "end of the market" you deal with is very small niche and complicated and mainly arises out of the complexity of the ticket system that can be at the same time unfair on both passengers and staff. However myself and others come at it from the perspective of seeing the behavior of some passengers attempts to see what they can get away with on a daily basis. We weigh up the volume of what we see versus the odd genuine case and cant come to any other conclusion given the numbers involved that is opposite to your view.

That is not to say that some cases have been known but you cant assume the TOC is always in the wrong. As you know I am one of those that have consistently argued for a much simpler and clearer fair system- one of the many benefits of this is that the root cause of many ticket disputes is tackled at source so they don't occur in the first place.

 

[Kite159]

My only experience of T&W metro was about 18 years ago. We couldn’t get the TVM to work. We asked the shopkeeper next to it, he had no idea and said nobody pays just jump the barrier.

We eventually got tickets out of the machine, but in the time it took us to do it, not one other person paid, they all just jumped the barriers!

It is good to see people being caught for this, but some of these fines seem rather large and inconsistent compared to the punishments that career criminals get for persistent crime. It looks like fare dodgers are seen as a cash cow.

Most likely some of the higher fines are for those who couldn't be bothered turning up to court and the case was heard in their absence.

I would imagine on the T&W Metro, unless you are travelling to a station in the city centre which has barriers, some will jump on without paying playing the odds of getting caught

 

[cuccir]

Local newspapers have always (until increasing centralisation and staff cuts at least) covered local courts and many also have arrangements to publish listings of case outcomes even if they were not present, as the information is in the public domain.

The naming issue has changed in the modern era though. A report like this will be read, and names memorized, by very few people. 30 years ago if this were on page 12 in a local newspaper, it'd be fish and chip wrapping the next day, and forgotten about within the week.

But in the modern era, these names could be googled in 10 years time and this story appears, long after any conviction is spent. Indeed if you search for a few of the names now, this list appears on another story listing all convicted at Bristol Magistrates that week and the headline previewed on Google is "Public intercourse act, golf membership assault and soliciting..." - hardly stuff people want associated with their name.

I get the argument that perhaps this might put people off from breaking the law (though there's little evidence that such deterrents have much effect) and I don't think that these issues should be censored. So I'm not arguing that naming people is wrong. But we also shouldn't pretend that the consequences of being named are the same in a digital era as they were in the days when this list would have been filed away in a dusty library and forgotten a couple of days after publication.

 

[Clip]

What do you mean "so pedantic"? It is an inaccurate, misleading headline - full stop. It is not complicated at all. It should read (something like) "31 people fined for boarding trains in the South West without valid tickets" - it really is pretty simple, and the sub got it wrong. That is not pedantry in my books.

It does its job prefectly.

 

[najaB]

But in the modern era, these names could be googled in 10 years time and this story appears, long after any conviction is spent.

Again, this is a matter of public record, the paper isn't reporting anything that couldn't be found out by other means.

 

[Smethwickian]

Again, this is a matter of public record, the paper isn't reporting anything that couldn't be found out by other means.

Indeed.
And although we are in danger of veering off-topic, I must add that even pre-digital era reports are becoming more accessible as the British Library continues its programme of digitising its entire newspaper library of hundreds of national and local titles so that the dusty files researchers would once have have had to browse through page-by-page are searchable online by keyword or - as we are discussing here - names.

 

[Gareth Marston]

As to the naming in the local paper- the court could fine 100 people this week but the local newspaper might not report it. They are under no obligation to, they might find something more interesting in their opinion to run with or their court reporter could have a dental appointment and miss the case.....

A friend of ours who was a free lance marketing consultant once had a client who wanted to pay her based on results of getting stuff into the media- she had a fit- it doesn't work like that. You can send the most well written, informative and interesting press release in the world to a paper but they have no obligation to report it.

 

[cuccir]

Again, this is a matter of public record, the paper isn't reporting anything that couldn't be found out by other means.

To be honest I think that there's such a significant difference in something being in a court library or record office somewhere that people would have to actively search for, and something happening to show up when I search for 'Joe Bloggs' in Google, as to make the comparison almost irrelevant. I'm minded of the quote from Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy:

But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

Whereas now rather than having to negotiate this process, people may accidentally find such material - and this may be with people for life.

To bring it back to the topic of this forum a little more, this is perhaps something that we might alert people to when discussing the merits of prosecution v settlements.

As to the naming in the local paper- the court could fine 100 people this week but the local newspaper might not report it. They are under no obligation to, they might find something more interesting in their opinion to run with or their court reporter could have a dental appointment and miss the case......

Yes - my understanding is that something appearing in the paper is more or less by chance

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think the problem here as others have commented on is an automatic assumption that the TOC must always be wrong.

But surely, there is also a problem with the automatic assumption that the TOC is correct?
And when it comes to a prosecution, surely the assumption that the TOC is wrong (and thus the defendant is innocent) is the correct assumption? As it should be up to the TOC to prove otherwise (that they are correct and the defendant is guilty).

 

[cuccir]

While it is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt, if a defendant doesn't show up and contradict their assertions then the judge has no choice but to accept the only claims in front of him/her as the truth.

 

[najaB]

To be honest I think that there's such a significant difference in something being in a court library or record office somewhere that people would have to actively search for,

Court records are available online these days. Plus:

I must add that even pre-digital era reports are becoming more accessible as the British Library continues its programme of digitising its entire newspaper library of hundreds of national and local titles so that the dusty files researchers would once have have had to browse through page-by-page are searchable online by keyword or - as we are discussing here - names.

 

[Gareth Marston]

But surely, there is also a problem with the automatic assumption that the TOC is correct?

Again using the evidence available to me through my own experience and looking at the volume of threads on here and their content - statistically the odds are overwhelmingly with the TOC I'm afraid. I am not saying they are never wrong HOWEVER the chances of them being right far outweigh the chances of them being wrong. If your looking objectively you know that the balance of probabilities is that the operator is correct - many people "jump in" on this part of the forum because they don't like the operator/don't like that the rules have changed and are looking for or suggesting loopholes. This is rarely productive or useful for the OP if they have encountered a problem and are looking for advice.

A lot of replys on these threads boil down to "So and So Rail are a bunch of t@@^"£&£ and I hate them and their policies but sorry mate I cant really suggest anything that will actually help you avoid the PF or Out of Court Settlement".

 

[njamescouk]

the simple expedient of having someone with a hat checking tickets before passengers got on the platform would eliminate an awful lot of fare dodging. but traincos are about profit, not service.

 

[pdsalford]

It's more than likely the whole report was generated by a press release by FGW themselves. It seems the few news organisations generate their own stories these days.

 

[talltim]

And here is another case http://www.penmansedgwick.com/PracticeAreas/Criminal/FareEvasion/FareEvasionCases.aspx (which I provided assistance for)

The defendant was accused of over-travelling without paying the correct fare, and I am certain that if they had not had proper representation the court would have found in favour of FCC. In fact the defendant had done nothing wrong. FCC were very worried by the presence of defence solicitors as it threatened to disrupt the day they had planned with many cases to get through, all of which were just rubber stamping exercises.

It has taken months for a forum member to get acceptance by GWR that they held a valid ticket for a journey made in April, and this was only after intervention of the retailer, and after numerous staff members (all of whom would no doubt be treated as expert witnesses by a court!) all stated the OP's fare was not valid.

I think some people really have absolutely no idea what goes on! Come and join us at a forum meal some time and I'll tell you what goes on!

Bit confused about that example. Surely on the return journey from London to Brookmans Park, Hatfield isn't a previous station?

 

[Haywain]

the simple expedient of having someone with a hat checking tickets before passengers got on the platform would eliminate an awful lot of fare dodging. but traincos are about profit, not service.

Or a culture where people believe they should pay for services provided without having to be asked.

 

[najaB]

the simple expedient of having someone with a hat checking tickets before passengers got on the platform would eliminate an awful lot of fare dodging. but traincos are about profit, not service.

Sorry, but the days of makework jobs are well and truly over.

 

[Haywain]

Bit confused about that example. Surely on the return journey from London to Brookmans Park, Hatfield isn't a previous station?

And appears to have higher fares than Brookmans Park.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Again using the evidence available to me through my own experience and looking at the volume of threads on here and their content - statistically the odds are overwhelmingly with the TOC I'm afraid. I am not saying they are never wrong HOWEVER the chances of them being right far outweigh the chances of them being wrong. If your looking objectively you know that the balance of probabilities is that the operator is correct - many people "jump in" on this part of the forum because they don't like the operator/don't like that the rules have changed and are looking for or suggesting loopholes. This is rarely productive or useful for the OP if they have encountered a problem and are looking for advice.

A lot of replys on these threads boil down to "So and So Rail are a bunch of t@@^"£&£ and I hate them and their policies but sorry mate I cant really suggest anything that will actually help you avoid the PF or Out of Court Settlement".

To be fair, I'd agree with a fair bit of that, though I disagree about the reasons why people (including myself) do it. It isn't (for the most part anyway) because people hate operators or whatever, it is because in many of the cases the way the operators are working either does not follow the rules they should be following (e.g. penalty fares etc), or goes against the spirit of the law (e.g. not making TVM's obvious and easy to use for everyone using the station, then prosecuting or fining / penalty faring people because they didn't use the TVM that they may not even have known about).

Or a culture where people believe they should pay for services provided without having to be asked.

Or a culture where ToC's believe they should actually provide passengers with obvious and easy to use methods of paying for services (just read some of the threads about Northern going on atm, added to the fact that last time GWR did a similar press release to the local rag they included details of passengers travelling from Oldfield Park and Keynsham, stations where until very recently the only way of buying a ticket was from a member of staff in a hut on one platform for 2 hours in the morning peak - thankfully something they are now starting to fix, although the new TVM at Keynsham especially really isn't obvious at all if you are coming in from the "town" side of the station).

Of course I am not denying some people will try to avoid paying regardless. But I suspect you will see a very strong trend where fare evasion drops the easier it is to pay (look at how many more people pay for films / tv shows / music now services like Netflix and Spotify make it so so easy compared to pirating, the same applies here).

 

[Haywain]

Or a culture where ToC's believe they should actually provide passengers with obvious and easy to use methods of paying for services (just read some of the threads about Northern going on atm, added to the fact that last time GWR did a similar press release to the local rag they included details of passengers travelling from Oldfield Park and Keynsham, stations where until very recently the only way of buying a ticket was from a member of staff in a hut on one platform for 2 hours in the morning peak - thankfully something they are now starting to fix, although the new TVM at Keynsham especially really isn't obvious at all if you are coming in from the "town" side of the station).

Of course I am not denying some people will try to avoid paying regardless. But I suspect you will see a very strong trend where fare evasion drops the easier it is to pay (look at how many more people pay for films / tv shows / music now services like Netflix and Spotify make it so so easy compared to pirating, the same applies here).

Opportunities to pay are not always perfect, but we see plenty of posters here who have walked past a readily available opportunity or have chosen, at their destination, to try and 'short fare'. Those matters are not the fault of TOCs, and the fact that people try it on is, in my view, a cultural matter. People from all walks of life do this believing that no more money should be paid than absolutely necessary, and no sooner than can be avoided and if it's avoided completely that's a bonus.

 

[Haywain]

While it is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt, if a defendant doesn't show up and contradict their assertions then the judge has no choice but to accept the only claims in front of him/her as the truth.

And equally, being found not guilty does not constitute proof that an offence was not committed, just that the evidence was not sufficient to secure a conviction.

 

[Starmill]

A lot of replys on these threads boil down to "So and So Rail are a bunch of t@@^"£&£ and I hate them and their policies but sorry mate I cant really suggest anything that will actually help you avoid the PF or Out of Court Settlement".

This is clearly a load of rubbish. But then you already know that.

 

[Mojo]

Bit confused about that example. Surely on the return journey from London to Brookmans Park, Hatfield isn't a previous station?

This is the thread in question: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...itinerary-via-hatfield-fcc-prosecution.66439/

At the time, the train company website stated that it was permitted to travel on a fast(er) train to Hatfield and then change and head back two stops to Brookmans Park.

 

[talltim]

This is the thread in question: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...itinerary-via-hatfield-fcc-prosecution.66439/

At the time, the train company website stated that it was permitted to travel on a fast(er) train to Hatfield and then change and head back two stops to Brookmans Park.

Thanks. I vaguely remember reading that thread now.

 

[35B]

And equally, being found not guilty does not constitute proof that an offence was not committed, just that the evidence was not sufficient to secure a conviction.

Debatable - the clue is in the words, and the inability to bring a further prosecution for the same offence. The Scots, wisely, have a third option of “not proven”, which does mean what you suggest.

 

[najaB]

The Scots, wisely, have a third option of “not proven”, which does mean what you suggest.

There has been, recently, talk of removing that third verdict. Not sure how far that one will get though.

 

[Mag_seven]

the simple expedient of having someone with a hat checking tickets before passengers got on the platform would eliminate an awful lot of fare dodging. but traincos are about profit, not service.

Don't we have that in some locations with manned operational ticket barriers?

 

[Bantamzen]

Opportunities to pay are not always perfect, but we see plenty of posters here who have walked past a readily available opportunity or have chosen, at their destination, to try and 'short fare'. Those matters are not the fault of TOCs, and the fact that people try it on is, in my view, a cultural matter. People from all walks of life do this believing that no more money should be paid than absolutely necessary, and no sooner than can be avoided and if it's avoided completely that's a bonus.

Sadly this is true, and something I regularly see on my travels in the UK & abroad. There is a culture in Britain that breeds this kind of thinking. I am not an apologist for TOCs, but as a very regular user I see and read about people abusing the system way more than I see or hear about people being treated unfairly. At the end of the day it is this culture that makes operators make unpopular policy decisions.

Perhaps the anger directed at TOCs is in part misplaced, and instead we should all focus on a) How to make the ticketing system fairer, and in general less expensive for all, and b) Discuss how fare evasion can be better tackled.

 

[Haywain]

Debatable - the clue is in the words, and the inability to bring a further prosecution for the same offence.

Not in any way debatable. If I punch someone in the face and end up in court but the person punched does not come to give evidence, I am found not guilty. Does that mean I didn't punch someone in the face?