Chiltern Recovers £400,000 of Evaded Revenue

[12LDA28C]

So the £400,000 represents roughly 0.25% of the annual gross passenger income.

Which is well below the widely 'accepted' percentage of ticketless travel.

Perhaps someone should ask Chiltern what improvements they will be making with the £400k

Why? It's revenue which should have been taken anyway, not as if it's 'additional' income.

 

[infobleep]

Which is well below the widely 'accepted' percentage of ticketless travel.



Why? It's revenue which should have been taken anyway, not as if it's 'additional' income.

Maybe the question could have been, what would they have had to cut, had they not had the revenue.

 

[Haywain]

Which is well below the widely 'accepted' percentage of ticketless travel.

True but they are not claiming to have eliminated ticketless travel.

 

[a_user_123]

Perhaps it is also worth noting that train companies have an attitude to delay repay that is at best careless in a direction that favours themselves and at worst deliberately and persistently evasive. I only ever claim when the situation is completely straightforward with no hint of ambiguity. But still claims are regularly repeated rejected or randomly passed from the operator responsible to one not responsible. The end result is that substantial effort is needed to actually get what is due and inevitably some claims get forgotten or lost in the system.

If one is hold the utterly bizarre view that the courts should be clogged up with very occasional procedural or accidental mistakes by people who have no intention of paying less than they should and where there is no income lost, then at the very least the rail companies should hold themselves to the same standard.

 

[sheff1]

Be realistic. The statement they make whilst perhaps not strictly true at least has resonance for most people.

I prefer "barefaced lie" to "not strictly true".
Various politicians tell barefaced lies/make statements which are not strictly true which resonate with many people - doesn't make it acceptable. Of coures, many (most ?) people expect politicians to lie. Disappointing, but not a surprise, that Chiltern feel the need to lie as well.

Why? It's revenue which should have been taken anyway, not as if it's 'additional' income.

Chiltern imply that them recovering fares evaded means there is more money available to improve the railway, so perfectly reasonable to enquire what they intend to use that money on now they have it.

 

[12LDA28C]

Chiltern imply that them recovering fares evaded means there is more money available to improve the railway, so perfectly reasonable to enquire what they intend to use that money on now they have it.

The precise quote was "Fare evasion means there’s less money available to improve the railways for everyone" which I took as a general commentary on the consequences of fare evasion across the railway system as a whole, which is correct. But it's not 'more money', its money that should already have been collected through the farebox and which one assumes has already been allocated to spending whether it's used to cover fixed costs, pay wages or actually used to improve services.

It's not quite such a media-friendly quote to say "Fare evasion means there’s less money available to pay our staff or maintain our trains".

If one is hold the utterly bizarre view that the courts should be clogged up with very occasional procedural or accidental mistakes by people who have no intention of paying less than they should and where there is no income lost, then at the very least the rail companies should hold themselves to the same standard.

Where exactly has it been claimed that the courts are 'clogged up' with people who have made 'very occasional procedural or accidental mistakes'?

And if the potential loss of revenue has only been recovered due to offenders being taken to court, then that would seem to justify the court action in those circumstances. Your 'delay repay' quote is a separate issue and totally unrelated to the problem of fare evasion.

 

[zero]

Did they employ new RPIs in order to increase their ticket checks? £400k probably covers the cost of employing about 5 RPIs

 

[Bletchleyite]

Did they employ new RPIs in order to increase their ticket checks? £400k probably covers the cost of employing about 5 RPIs

Don't think I've ever seen a roving RPI on Chiltern - it's mostly done at gatelines.

 

[Tallguy]

Chiltern have been cracking down on the massive fare evasion they suffer from in the last 9 months or so. I get ticket checked on many long distance journeys north of Banbury but not that often between Banbury and Oxford or London. I always have the correct ticket so have nothing to fear from any form of revenue protection operations.

 

[Mojo]

I get ticket checked on many long distance journeys north of Banbury but not that often between Banbury and Oxford or London.

Is this not just as a result of Chiltern having guards on their routes north of Banbury but not on their multiple units south thereof, or are they RPIs?

 

[12LDA28C]

Don't think I've ever seen a roving RPI on Chiltern - it's mostly done at gatelines.

They're known as CSIs on Chiltern and they certainly have been known to travel around on trains although more so back in the days when a few were based at Aylesbury for 'bubble car' and Paddington / West Ealing work.

Is this not just as a result of Chiltern having guards on their routes north of Banbury but not on their multiple units south thereof, or are they RPIs?

Correct, they are train managers / guards north of Banbury.

 

[Tallguy]

Is this not just as a result of Chiltern having guards on their routes north of Banbury but not on their multiple units south thereof, or are they RPIs?

Both in my experience.

 

[Starmill]

What do you expect Chiltern to say:

Fare evasion has no impact whatsoever? Thats a bit like Tesco saying "Shoplifting has no effect on prices in our stores whatsoever".

OR

Fare evasion means we have to underpay our staff?

Be realistic. The statement they make whilst perhaps not strictly true at least has resonance for most people.

I think the point being made is about the principle of being honest. They could have simply said that they regard it as bad customer service to those who've paid to let a small proportion of people use a service they should have paid for without doing so.

I don't see how they could be criticised if they'd just been honest. Instead a choice was made to fabricate something which doesn't exist.

 

[Hadders]

Chiltern do seem to take a more robust attitude than some train companies, although experience in this section of the forum tends to suggest that if you co-operate with them then they will settle out of court.

Since the start of the year I've been keeping a tally by train company of the number of cases in this section of the forum.

GTR lead the way closely followed by Northern. This is to be expected as they are the largest train operating companies.
Next is TfL and in 4th place is Chiltern.

Chiltern is one of the smaller train operating companies who generally serve more 'upmarket' areas of the country.
We see more cases involving Chiltern than we do for much larger operators like SWR, WMT, Southeastern and Greater Anglia.

Is this because Chitern are more robust in their approach?
Is it because revenue operations are easier to conduct on Chiltern - is it easier to identify and challenge at the gateline at Marylebone than Waterloo?
Doing a 'Wembley Stadium' is simple to identify at Marylebone. Do other London Terminals afford a similar opportunity without overly inconveniencing passengers?
Could other train operators learn something from Chiltern's approach?
Is there some other reason why we don't see more cases from SWR, WMT, Southeastern, Greater Anglia
We get very few cases involving inter-city operators (perhaps to be expected due to more onboard checks)
We haven't seen a single case for c2c so far this year! Is this because c2c's revenue protection is less robust than Chiltern? Or has c2c done a better job over the years of making sure passengers know they have to buy a ticket and consequently fewer passengers 'chance it'?

 

[Adam Williams]

Chiltern is one of the smaller train operating companies who generally serve more 'upmarket' areas of the country.

I'd be quite interested in some statistics about the average individual involved in these cases, and their background. My suspicion is that being from an "upmarket", less economically deprived area doesn't necessarily mean you're less likely to evade a fare at all. Indeed, some of the higher profile cases in the media over the years have involved well-paid folks working in finance.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'd be quite interested in some statistics about the average individual involved in these cases, and their background. My suspicion is that being from an "upmarket", less economically deprived area doesn't necessarily mean you're less likely to evade a fare at all. Indeed, some of the higher profile cases in the media over the years have involved well-paid folks working in finance.

A point well made. Tho such cases always make for a good media angle so that has to be factored in when you read such stories.

Also important to bear in mind however upmarket an area is, there are always people in such an area that are skint / or happy to dodge fares etc (I don't mean just because you are skint you are a potential fare dodger).

 

[Wolfie]

Chiltern do seem to take a more robust attitude than some train companies, although experience in this section of the forum tends to suggest that if you co-operate with them then they will settle out of court.

Since the start of the year I've been keeping a tally by train company of the number of cases in this section of the forum.

GTR lead the way closely followed by Northern. This is to be expected as they are the largest train operating companies.
Next is TfL and in 4th place is Chiltern.

Chiltern is one of the smaller train operating companies who generally serve more 'upmarket' areas of the country.
We see more cases involving Chiltern than we do for much larger operators like SWR, WMT, Southeastern and Greater Anglia.

Is this because Chitern are more robust in their approach?
Is it because revenue operations are easier to conduct on Chiltern - is it easier to identify and challenge at the gateline at Marylebone than Waterloo?
Doing a 'Wembley Stadium' is simple to identify at Marylebone. Do other London Terminals afford a similar opportunity without overly inconveniencing passengers?
Could other train operators learn something from Chiltern's approach?
Is there some other reason why we don't see more cases from SWR, WMT, Southeastern, Greater Anglia
We get very few cases involving inter-city operators (perhaps to be expected due to more onboard checks)
We haven't seen a single case for c2c so far this year! Is this because c2c's revenue protection is less robust than Chiltern? Or has c2c done a better job over the years of making sure passengers know they have to buy a ticket and consequently fewer passengers 'chance it'?

Re your last para my OH lives in Grays. My observations suggest that fare evasion on C2C is rife.

 

[Haywain]

Also important to bear in mind however upmarket an area is, there are always people in such an area that are skint / or happy to dodge fares etc

As might be suggested by a settlement of £15,000.

 

[Hadders]

I'd be quite interested in some statistics about the average individual involved in these cases, and their background. My suspicion is that being from an "upmarket", less economically deprived area doesn't necessarily mean you're less likely to evade a fare at all. Indeed, some of the higher profile cases in the media over the years have involved well-paid folks working in finance.

Agreed! People often think and expect there to be less fare evasion in 'upmarket' areas. In my line of work I know that we often get losses where you don't expect them - white collar crime where people think they can cheat the system and not get caught!

 

[Wolfie]

Agreed! People often think and expect there to be less fare evasion in 'upmarket' areas. In my line of work I know that we often get losses where you don't expect them - white collar crime where people think they can cheat the system and not get caught!

Sadly many middle and upper class people believe that they are too clever to get caught.

 

[baz962]

I think too that many people believe that it's not really wrong and it's victimless and I personally disagree. I think there is an attitude of it's going there anyway so they aren't losing anything. And I think that yes Chiltern are probably more robust. I travel on Thameslink quite a bit and although I do see revenue about it isn't that often , especially the times I travel .

Sadly many middle and upper class people believe that they are too clever to get caught.

 

[The exile]

Sadly many middle and upper class people believe that they are too clever to get caught.

Sadly too many people full stop. In fact, I suspect that if we’re scrupulously honest with ourselves, there are very few people to whom this doesn’t apply in some area of life or another - it’s just the degree of “audacity” / “criminality” that will vary. (Speed limits, parking offences, anyone….)

 

[a_user_123]

Where exactly has it been claimed that the courts are 'clogged up' with people who have made 'very occasional procedural or accidental mistakes'?

And if the potential loss of revenue has only been recovered due to offenders being taken to court, then that would seem to justify the court action in those circumstances. Your 'delay repay' quote is a separate issue and totally unrelated to the problem of fare evasion.

"
On a purely personal level, I am somewhat of the view that your ‘honest mistake’ case should probably get a penalty fare on the first occasion, but if after that any further offences are detected (including any ‘minor procedural error’ instances) “off to court you go my lad!”
"

Which it seems is coming from someone working on trains!

To be absolutely clear: the vast majority of people with normal busy lives who travel by train regularly (especially on routes that they don't always use) will average a few minor procedural errors per decade. The idea that, with sufficient enforcement resources, basically all of the population deserves go through court proceedings as a result is bizarre. There is no potential damage whatsoever done to anyone.

To give a single example: twice over the last 5 years I have accidentally got on the wrong train (both times from the same platform, with the wrong train running late, and when I was exhausted after work). I went a couple of stops before noticing, at which point I immediately got off and paid extra for a ticket back. By sheer luck my ticket wasn't checked either time.

It is genuinely hard to understand how anyone could think court proceeding would be a good outcome for the above. Seriously, I'd like to know! Is it some obsession with rules? A major focus on detail and a wish to see others suffer? There's clearly no good to society in general.

 

[ChewChewTrain]

Quite a few with flat phone batteries are evaders. At least one of our guards carries plenty of chargers for different phones and catches out many people. It's a let's pretend we can't show you game.

I’d love to see some footage of them in action. Zooming in, of course, on the passenger’s face at the precise moment when they receive the “good news” that their phone can be charged there and then…

To be absolutely clear: the vast majority of people with normal busy lives who travel by train regularly (especially on routes that they don't always use) will average a few minor procedural errors per decade. The idea that, with sufficient enforcement resources, basically all of the population deserves go through court proceedings as a result is bizarre.

While I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, I will just say that similar logic could also be applied to (for example) drivers exceeding the speed limit.

I think I’ll just leave it at that.

 

[AlterEgo]

"
On a purely personal level, I am somewhat of the view that your ‘honest mistake’ case should probably get a penalty fare on the first occasion, but if after that any further offences are detected (including any ‘minor procedural error’ instances) “off to court you go my lad!”
"

Which it seems is coming from someone working on trains!

The author of that quote does not work on the railway, I'm pretty sure.

 

[tspaul26]

The author of that quote does not work on the railway, I'm pretty sure.

Not as part of the day job, at least!

 

[Haywain]

Which it seems is coming from someone working on trains!

I am pretty sure that @tspaul26 does not work on trains, or for the railway.

 

[tspaul26]

Which it seems is coming from someone working on trains!

Since this comment is to a greater or lesser degree directed at me, I’ll bite.

First things first, in my job I generally specialise in securing consent for major transport projects and associated safeguarding matters, including for rail schemes, but I am not (and have never been) employed ‘on the trains’.

I do some voluntary work connected with the railway, but this primarily entails providing support to vulnerable people, schools safety outreach and dealing with known sex offenders, violent offenders and antisocial behaviour on stations.

To be absolutely clear: the vast majority of people with normal busy lives who travel by train regularly (especially on routes that they don't always use) will average a few minor procedural errors per decade. The idea that, with sufficient enforcement resources, basically all of the population deserves go through court proceedings as a result is bizarre. There is no potential damage whatsoever done to anyone.

The vast majority of the population never travels by train, let alone regularly or frequently. Your argument is based on a false premise.

Of regular or frequent travellers, they are perfectly capable of paying for their travel in advance - and do so. They do not by and large make “minor procedural errors”.

They see the signs and hear the announcements which make quite clear that tickets must be purchased prior to boarding - and they do so.

Almost all of the journeys they make are comparatively simple, whether from their local station into town or even on longer distance journeys which they will generally book in advance (the booking route doesn’t matter for this purpose) for the train and times they want and they will then stick to that itinerary.

And there is damage from lax enforcement: it undermines the foregoing messages; causes confusion; and can lead people into a ’pay when challenged’ mentality, thus depriving the railway of legitimate revenue and increasing the cost to the public purse.

And let’s be honest with ourselves here: many of the cases which come up in this forum are far from ‘honest mistakes’. Instead, they involve deliberate dishonesty and serial evasion and there are threads littered with excuses, blame-shifting and entitlement.

I will single out the ‘expired railcard’ cases though. I am happy to accept that most of these are inadvertent errors, but the passengers must then learn their lesson and not do it again. People should accept responsibility for their actions because no one forces them to have a railcard in the first place.

They should also pay the additional money in respect of the discounts to which they were not entitled, which is not as I understand it how TOCs tend to approach such matters and which I oppose.

If they do not learn this lesson, then it should be escalated to a higher level in the hope that might (a) cause them to take more care in the future and (b) encourage others.

To give a single example: twice over the last 5 years I have accidentally got on the wrong train (both times from the same platform, with the wrong train running late, and when I was exhausted after work). I went a couple of stops before noticing, at which point I immediately got off and paid extra for a ticket back. By sheer luck my ticket wasn't checked either time.

Clearly you didn’t learn your lesson. Perhaps you should take more care in the future?

And I note that you appear not to have paid for all of the travel you undertook even in your own example.

It is genuinely hard to understand how anyone could think court proceeding would be a good outcome for the above. Seriously, I'd like to know! Is it some obsession with rules? A major focus on detail and a wish to see others suffer? There's clearly no good to society in general.

Had you inadvertently over-travelled on one occasion, but paid the requisite fare for that travel, then I would agree that proceeding with a prosecution might not be in the public interest. But as I mentioned in my original comment, I wouldn’t be of a mind for such a case to be prosecuted at all!

But that is not this case: you have done it more than once; didn’t learn your lesson; and didn’t actually pay for all of the additional travel you made.

 

[VT118]

A cursory glance at the @Customersofchilternrailways twitter account and you'll see why so many people try and evade the fares. I don't think they're providing a safe service. They appear to be in breach of the maximum capacity limits. Their social media account gives some truly abhorrent replies.

This week, someone tweeted them to let them know that their train was so rammed that they almost fell through a door. The response?

"If you feel unsafe get off at the next station and wait for the next train"

The increase in revenue protection perhaps shows where their priorities lie. Milk as much money out of the franchise while you have it. I assume they have no incentive to reinvest for new rolling stock as it would take years to turn a profit.

Someone is possibly going to get seriously injured soon. People are already feinting on a regular basis. I dread the summer months.

 

[Deafdoggie]

This week, someone tweeted them to let them know that their train was so rammed that they almost fell through a door. The response?

"If you feel unsafe get off at the next station and wait for the next train"

What would you suggest their response should have been?