Amount of cash raised by TOC's in fines and UPN's etc

[maniacmartin]

Also, the fact the RPIs are patrolling trains discourages others who may have otherwise evaded the fare

 

[jon0844]

I would say that given FCC generally offer an out of court settlement to people, rather than being asked if they'd settle out of court, it's quite clear the intention is to raise money this way - trying to avoid court wherever possible.

I do sympathise; £20 is far too low for a penalty fare and even twice the standard fare isn't much of a deterrent. Therefore, FCC is going down the legal route even though it really has very little intention of taking it that far - unless the person still refuses, or it's a repeat offence etc.

More recently, it seems Northern has caught on to this idea and I assume other TOCs will too (Edit: I see from other threads Northern are charging a seemingly fixed rate of £80 and calling it a 'fixed penalty notice'). This will mean PFs will be issued a lot less, which is clearly surprising a lot of people who post on here who think that they can refuse to pay and wait for a request for £20 to turn up a few weeks/months later!!

 

[Clip]

Of course it is good practice and if that is what RPIs etc did I would support them 100%.

Unfortunately, as is clear from my own personal experiences and various threads on here, a minority do not ensure everyone has the correct ticket(s). Instead they claim correct tickets are somehow invalid and, as has been reported on here, extract money from people based on those false claims.

Now those who come on here who have been incorrectly charged are assisted in getting their money back, but I have have little doubt that many more pay up and move on for a quiet life (they may even believe the RPI is correct*). Extracting money from such people over and above the amount they have already legally paid boosts TOC revenue/profits.

* The sort of cases I am thinking of here are
- PF for being in 'First Class' on a declassified train
- incorrect Off Peak times
and so on.

I do read this forum so Im well aware of the issues surrounding poorly trained RPIs/TMs but that is not what I was commenting on, merely why they do so many of them. Too many threads on bad RPIs to let another get dragged down about them.

 

[glasgowguy1984]

I think that the op is correct in that toc's do take advantage of people with the threat of courts and criminal convictions to milk as much money as possible out of (the majority) good honest people who have perhaps made a small terms and conditions mistake. The northern £80 fines are an example of completely out of proportion to the 'offence' committed, pure profiteering.

Under current scots law you will never see scotrail doing any revenue operations like that, quite simply because the courts in scotland would take a dim view of such operations plus sheriffs would start asking the prosecutor if they were deliberately wasting a courts time. Quite frankly if ever I was to get 'fined' whatever and threatened with legal action I would happily go to court, you don't even need a good lawyer who'll be able to get it quashed and thrown out before it sees the courts doors. This though comes from a lawyers son though who's first answer to anything is here's my contact details no I don't want to chat, make a statement you can wait till I see a lawyer. It amazes me how many people think you can have a casual chat with police, revenue inspectors or anybody in an official capacity, cos they seemed like a nice guy! Always keep your mouth shut till you see legal representation you are an idiot if you say anything. P.S I always pay for my train tickets never had issue with a toc

 

[jb]

I think that the op is correct in that toc's do take advantage of people with the threat of courts and criminal convictions to milk as much money as possible out of (the majority) good honest people who have perhaps made a small terms and conditions mistake. The northern £80 fines are an example of completely out of proportion to the 'offence' committed, pure profiteering.

If the "offences" here were one-offs I'd probably agree about the disproportionality argument. But I'd bet that in many if most cases they aren't (no matter what the squealings of those caught suggest).

 

[jon0844]

Isn't the point that these cases aren't going to court and a TOC is offering the ability to keep it out of court for a fixed sum? And for a Byelaw 18 offence, I doubt you'd take it to court glasgowguy1984 and win as there's no defence.

I guess most people pay to avoid a criminal record or the hassle, but I'd love to find out if you could actually haggle with a TOC in some cases. You know they don't want to go to court and get less money, so can (potentially) use that to your advantage. I'm referring mostly to the Byelaw 18 offences, although we can see on here that Northern is also happy to settle for the £80+fare owed even when it was attempting to go to court for fraud related charges.

 

[FenMan]

Fallacy. You're assuming 100% of fare evaders are prosecuted.

You have made an assumption that is different to the one I made. The figures published by FCC show their loss of fare revenue for the people they have reported for prosecution is £60k a year. I should have made that clear.

This £60,000 figure does not change if FCC subsequently opt for an out of court settlement in respect of these 16,000 incidents.

Clearly, there is a deterrent effect at work too, which I would hope adds up to a lot more than £60k worth of fares!

 

[Clip]

Tfl penalty fares are 80 for the same kind of offences yet I see no one saying are completely out of proportion anywhere on here.

I don't really agree with how northern are applying this policy but without being able to implement a pf scheme I'm not sure what more they can do apart from take people to court

 

[glasgowguy1984]

If the "offences" here were one-offs I'd probably agree about the disproportionality argument. But I'd bet that in many if most cases they aren't (no matter what the squealings of those caught suggest).

The vast overwhelming majority will be minor, two cases of not having a ticket in three years is not a particularly convincing argument even in a court of law. Lets be brutally honest toc's should be going after people travelling on fake season tickets who will avoid paying thousands a year in which case a criminal court is essential might not get jailed first time but on the second attempt I'm betting they'd get a spell at her majesty's pleasure. Plus ticketless travel is much like shoplifters after a while the staff know that wee old man jimmy won't have a ticket and just kick him off at the next station as even if you do fine him he isn't going to have the cash to pay it. In the end toc's should put their efforts into fake season tickets and alike that show a 'long term' ie more than two cases of travelling without a ticket in two years, but as that appears difficult they seemed to enjoy the easy pickings of commuter sheep, so yes its still profiteering.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I realise that these remarks are merely being offered as personal opinions, but I wonder if there might be some misunderstandings here:

More recently, it seems Northern has caught on to this idea and I assume other TOCs will too (Edit: I see from other threads Northern are charging a seemingly fixed rate of £80 and calling it a 'fixed penalty notice'). This will mean PFs will be issued a lot less, which is clearly surprising a lot of people who post on here who think that they can refuse to pay and wait for a request for £20 to turn up a few weeks/months later!!

Northern Rail are not one of the TOCs empowered to issue Penalty Fares under the Penalty Fares Regulations and so their F.T.P. scheme must be viewed as their attempt to provide as close an alternative as the law provides (if they were able to issue P.F.s then we can be sure that they would). Those TOCs that are empowered to issue PFs will continue to do so under the protection of their enabling Regulations. There is no evidence or good reason to assume that a TOC which currently enjoys the authorisation to issue P.F.s would elect to introduce their own alternative scheme.

Consequently, it is hard to see on what basis we could guess that "PFs will be issued a lot less".

Isn't the point that these cases aren't going to court and a TOC is offering the ability to keep it out of court for a fixed sum? And for a Byelaw 18 offence, I doubt you'd take it to court glasgowguy1984 and win as there's no defence.

I thought glasgowguy1984 was making the point that First ScotRail would not have much prospect of sucess in attempting to prosecute (such a prosecution would normally be under Scots law, remember).

 

[Tibbs]

Tfl penalty fares are 80 for the same kind of offences yet I see no one saying are completely out of proportion anywhere on here.

I don't really agree with how northern are applying this policy but without being able to implement a pf scheme I'm not sure what more they can do apart from take people to court

The difference is that TfL have a legal mandate for offering that PF, Northern have just pulled theirs out of thin air.

It is illegal to add a penalty payment on top of costs when settling an outstanding debt. It's under that legislation that I got my money back from my bank. As far as I know (and I'm not a lawyer) this is why there has to be separate legislation to allow TOCs to issue Penalty Fares.

Of course this didn't stop the banks from doing it, and one would imagine that if challenged Northern would have to itemise their costs to justify the £80 or return the money.

Having successfully used the small claims process in the past, I would certainly pay Northern their £80 and then look into the possibility of reclaiming the money after they had sent me the letter telling me they were not going to prosecute.

 

[glasgowguy1984]

Isn't the point that these cases aren't going to court and a TOC is offering the ability to keep it out of court for a fixed sum? And for a Byelaw 18 offence, I doubt you'd take it to court glasgowguy1984 and win as there's no defence..

Another poster pointed out that it was Scots law I was talking about, I would take it to court. I am assuming large English lawyers firms work the same as up here though, flashy hard nosed experienced lawyers to the top brass of a toc, however none of these lawyers would be seen dead in a court over unpaid train tickets they'll send their inexperienced trainee to get some. If you have a lawyer from a small local firm quite frankly they'll clean their clocks for them. Much like no win no fee lawyers meat factory lawyers want an easy win if you lawyer up they're MUCH more likely to want to avoid court as its not cost effective for them. I do think they do these revenue fines to make profit as most people don't put a fight and its easy pickings to make extra profit.

 

[Ferret]

Does Byelaw 18 not apply north of the border then Dave?

I have to totally disagree with Glasgowguy about who we should target - frankly we should go after *everyone* who travels without a ticket.

 

[island]

Under Scots law as I understand it, only the Procurator Fiscal may prosecute a criminal offence other than by leave of the court, which isn't generally given.

 

[michael769]

Under Scots law as I understand it, only the Procurator Fiscal may prosecute anyone other than by leave of the court.

This. To raise a private prosecution you need the permission of the High Court. In the last 100 hundred years there have only been 2 private criminal prosecutions.

In practice all cases have to go through he Procurator Fiscal and be subject to their Full Code test.

While Byelaw 18 does apply, Scots law has very different rules of evidence (most notably the requirement for corroboration of all items of evidence) and different procedures, so a case that would be successful in an English Court could well fail in a Scottish court and vice versa.

As an example a statement from an RPI alleging an offender admitted not planning to buy a ticket would most likely be ignored in a Scottish court unless the offender admitted making the statement or it was witnessed by another person.

 

[Ferret]

This. To raise a private prosecution you need the permission of the High Court. In the last 100 hundred years there has only been 2 private prosecutions.

In practice all cases have to go through he Procurator Fiscal and be subject to their Full Code test.

While Byelaw 18 does apply, Scots law has very different rules of evidence (most notably the requirement for corroboration of all items of evidence) and different procedures, so a case that would be successful in an English Court could well fail in a Scottish court and vice versa.

As an example a statement from an RPI alleging an offender admitted not planning to buy a ticket would most likely be ignored in a Scottish court unless the offender admitted making the statement or it was witnessed by another person.

So, would an RPI taking a statement with a colleague witnessing it be sufficient to satisfy the Procurator Fiscal?

 

[michael769]

So, would an RPI taking a statement with a colleague witnessing it be sufficient to satisfy the Procurator Fiscal?

It is not the Fiscal you need to satisfy - it is the court! But yes it would, there is a reason why it is rare to see a police officer patrolling alone.

Another material difference is that the absolute right to remain silent remains in place up here so a court cannot draw inferences from "no comment" responses (indeed they cannot even be mentioned to the court).

 

[Ferret]

It is not the Fiscal you need to satisfy - it is the court! But yes it would, there is a reason why it is rare to see a police officer patrolling alone.

Another material difference is that the absolute right to remain silent remains in place up here so a court cannot draw inferences from "no comment" responses (indeed they cannot even be mentioned to the court).

Both PF and Court need satisfying, it seems to me!

Thanks for that Michael769, nice to learn something!

 

[glasgowguy1984]

Look at the end of the day courts and toc's work on cost basis. No PF is gonna go for a case for ticketless travel in Scotland, they don't have time or resources for serious assault cases never mind a bye law 18 offence on a train, it would be dropped you can now be offered a fine without going to court by pleading guilty but it dosen't go on your criminal record however again decent lawyer you wouldn't even get that. Civil action again unlikely as costs are too high and odds of getting any money back especially if defendant is on benefits and don't own their own home are virtually zero so no point. These are the reasons you never see Scotrail on here.

In a wider context though if you stand up for yourself and get lawyered up quickly toc's will be much more likely to back down ( take more seriously and cost effective as deciding factors) and instead go hunt some other commuter sheep for easy pickings. Hence why I agree with the original op's point that its just a revenue generating exercise with threats of criminal records to scare people into paying up amounts that are totally overblown in relation to their committed 'offences'. Ain't it funny how t&c are hard to find in the small print but criminal record or you could pay a fee to avoid this is in a much larger and bolder text, funny that.

 

[Tibbs]

As an addendum to this fascinating conversation, if a TOC threatens me with court, I seek legal representation and they drop the case, am I allowed to go after them for my costs?

 

[island]

If you have been summonsed to court, yes (as they can't just "drop the case" as such and you would get to have your say). If you haven't, maybe.

 

[jon0844]

From what we can see on here regarding FCC and what I know from taking to people privately, I honestly believe - and think it is pretty obvious - that FCC is actively seeking to use byelaw 18 instead of issuing a PF whenever possible. That then results in FCC automatically making an offer to settle out of court.

FCC established it's fraud investigation team and has been expanding it. If the person you meet is trained to do so, all the evidence shows they'll go for this route over a PF if they can.

I have no idea if it is illegal and have mixed views on whether it's immorral (in most cases, as I said before, £20 is too low and double the fare no punishment) but that is clearly what is happening and has been for some time.

I apologise for my confusing regarding Scottish Law. The username should have made that rather obvious.

Nevertheless, let's not assume that any TOC entitled to issue penalty fares will not also think to do the same. I am sure they all think the current system hasn't kept with the times and is no longer effective.

 

[RJ]

I don't understand how so many people come to be travelling without a valid ticket on a network with open ticket offices/TVMs at virtually every station. FCC doesn't operate pay trains and there are Penalty Fare Notice posters all over the place.

For a significant number of people, railway travel in itself is not something that is worth paying for upfront - getting a ticket is more about not getting into hot water. If the risk is deemed to be lower than the cost, they will take the opportunity to get away with not paying the fare. For what it's worth, I don't actually disagree with people being convicted for holding this attitude and executing it in practice. The railways aren't a charity and as someone who always pays the fare, I don't see why TOCs should go easy on opportunists. Penalty Fares are clearly not working as an effective deterrent and the trust system doesn't work in this country, so stricter enforcement is the only way forward.

My opinion on this doesn't extend to the whole network - different rules apply for long distance and rural service. But for inner suburban and commuter operations, what excuse is there for committing a fare related offence?

 

[jon0844]

Certainly a lot of the excuses on here are pretty weak!

 

[island]

For a significant number of people, railway travel in itself is not something that is worth paying for upfront - getting a ticket is more about not getting into hot water. If the risk is deemed to be lower than the cost, they will take the opportunity to get away with not paying the fare. For what it's worth, I don't actually disagree with people being convicted for holding this attitude and executing it in practice. The railways aren't a charity and as someone who always pays the fare, I don't see why TOCs should go easy on opportunists. Penalty Fares are clearly not working as an effective deterrent and the trust system doesn't work in this country, so stricter enforcement is the only way forward.

I agree with your assessment although an alternative conclusion is that gating the entire network would do a lot as well, combined with random on-train checks (to combat doughnutting and self-upgrading). Never going to happen due to cost, practicality, and a wide range of other reasons. But it works in Japan where there are gates at every gap in the hedge and every station is staffed from first to last train. Ironically it is less necessary there as there is a strong personal honour and morality which would make fare-dodging rare.

I was going to say that when fare-dodging is treated as seriously as theft or shoplifting by the public, we would be getting somewhere, but on reflection, shoplifting is considered trivial as well. The whole effort is hampered by people and the mass media who think that nobody should be prosecuted over a £2 fare (or whatever). By that argument, nobody should be prosecuted over a £2.10 fare, because it is so close to £2, and induction brings us to nobody being prosecuted at all!

 

[michael769]

Look at the end of the day courts and toc's work on cost basis.

The courts do not! They try cases submitted by the Fiscal and the Fiscal prioritizes cases on public interest ground, not costs. Plenty of what one might consider "trival" offences are prosecuted every day particularly in front of JPs.

No PF is gonna go for a case for ticketless travel in Scotland

I have to say I don't agree. Stealing is taken pretty seriously up here, and I am quite confident that the PF would seriously consider a viable case for fare dodging, just as they regularly proceed with cases for shoplifting a can of coke.

The main reason we see less cases up here is because there are no cost awards in Scotland so Scotrail would not be able to recoup any of the costs of their revenue protection operation. To date the focus (as mandated by Transport Scotland) has been on barriering major stations, manual ticket blocks at peak hours and on train ticket checks.

But all it would take would be someone in the Crown Office and/or Transport Scotland to decide it mas a major issue to trigger multi-agency targeted enforcement.

In a wider context though if you stand up for yourself and get lawyered up quickly toc's will be much more likely to back down ( take more seriously and cost effective as deciding factors)

I agree with this. No doubt ToCs will offer settlements for cases where the evidence they have is a bit on the weak side, and no doubt some would be abandoned if the accused decided not to co-operate. But the accused does not get to see the evidence (unless the plead not guilty) to facing down the ToCs risks landing oneself with a legal bill and a criminal record. I guess if you are inclined to gamble...

and instead go hunt some other commuter sheep for easy pickings.

I am not sure I would characterize thiefs as "commuter sheep". Genuine commuter sheep pay their way.

Ain't it funny how t&c are hard to find in the small print but criminal record or you could pay a fee to avoid this is in a much larger and bolder text, funny that.

I don't think you need to tell people that they are required to pay their way.

At the end of the day while we see some folks genuinely caught out by poor service by ToCs, they are in the minority. The vast majority fare dodge quite intentionally, kniwing full well what they are doing, and deserve no more sympathy or consideration that do any other type of thief.

 

[Ferret]

A fair assessment there Michael769.

With regard to 'getting lawyered up' alas this often comes with a cost, and often an out-of-court settlement will cost far less than a Solicitor would.

To be honest, PF's act as a deterrent to some but to others they are worth a gamble; it should come as no surprise that TOCs are looking to move way from them.

 

[Tibbs]

A fair assessment there Michael769.

With regard to 'getting lawyered up' alas this often comes with a cost, and often an out-of-court settlement will cost far less than a Solicitor would.

To be honest, PF's act as a deterrent to some but to others they are worth a gamble; it should come as no surprise that TOCs are looking to move way from them.

With a £20 PF you would only need to travel 6 times to make it worthwhile getting caught based on the average fare of £3.70.

As long as you manage to come up with a wheeze that means you get away with the name check / being recognised, as long as you don't get caught more than about once a week (actually every 4 days assuming a return journey every day), you're making a profit.

**note for the hard of thinking**

I'm looking at this from a purely financial point of view. Just because I've done the maths it doesn't mean I do this, nor am I encouraging others to skip fares, nor am I saying it's ok to evade fares.

 

[maniacmartin]

The thing is you might just be recognised. For example this week I've had my ticket checked on 3 random RPI blockades and the same staff do pop up again and may well just recognise you.

 

[Tibbs]

Hence my point about having to come up with a way of not being recognised.

Far easier said than done, of course, but I was looking purely at the financial side of things.