Could new report from Transport Focus Help 1st time offences *which were unintentional*

[Richard1979]

I've just seen that Transport Focus has just released a series of recommendations around the current approach to prosecutions for minor, first-time offences. I wonder if these recommendations would be useful for those currently facing these kind of issues to attatch to their response, when sending in their evidence?

https://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/14143955/Revenue-Protection-Recommendations-January-2025.pdf

 

[MrJeeves]

Introduction of a Railcard Database

• A central digital record of all railcards issued that can be accessed on demand will ensure that passengers’ eligibility for the relevant discount can speedily and easily be checked, even if they have forgotten or are unable to access proof when asked.

Well, that one should easy, because it already exists.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Well, that one should easy, because it already exists.

Does it?

Including ones issued in Ticket Offices, or from Third Party Retailers?

 

[AlterEgo]

How would they verify I am a Disabled Railcard holder? I assume they'd need ID from me, and wouldn't just take my word I am who I say I am?

 

[Richard1979]

Just also found this 'call for evidence' link from the Office of Rail and Road. For those who have made genuine mistakes, lets hope they get good responses to bring this issue to light.

Call for evidence: Review of train operators’ revenue protection policies | Office of Rail and Road

Call for evidence for the ORR independent review of train operators’ revenue protection practices.

www.orr.gov.uk

 

[Knoodlepot]

Well, that one should easy, because it already exists.

It's not as it depends where the person purchased the railcard.
Not all booking offices put the correct details on the system.

I know that the RDG wanted to get a database like this but the railcard holder had to volunteer information.

Also the Job Center rail card are just handed out willy nilly.
We contacted a job center and had a chat. When they hand them out they don't even make a record of when and who.

 

[MrJeeves]

It's not as it depends where the person purchased the railcard.
Not all booking offices put the correct details on the system.

I know that the RDG wanted to get a database like this but the railcard holder had to volunteer information.

All Railcards are now in a central database, with a API available to query this.

The documentation for this is even available publicly with a simple Google search, too: https://anypoint.mulesoft.com/excha...0-a865-490e-b485-a735f66bdcd2/railcards-eapi/

I'm aware that TTK have access to this and it is possible to query Railcard details with just the Railcard number, at least via TTK's web interface.

The API returns both the Railcard type, expiry date, and the names of the cardholders:

{
  "railcardType": "YNG",
  "expiresOn": "2022-12-31",
  "holders": [
    {
      "firstName": "John",
      "lastName": "Smith"
    }
  ]
}

 

[swt_passenger]

Just also found this 'call for evidence' link from the Office of Rail and Road. For those who have made genuine mistakes, lets hope they get good responses to bring this issue to light.

Call for evidence: Review of train operators’ revenue protection policies | Office of Rail and Road

Call for evidence for the ORR independent review of train operators’ revenue protection practices.

www.orr.gov.uk

We have had a short thread running since December about this ORR call for evidence:

ORR Review of Revenue Protection. Dec 2024

As the request of the Transport Secretary the Office of Road and Rail has started a consultation on railway Revenue Protection policies, This can be found on the ORR website at the following link...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[FuzzyDuck]

The use of "innocent" in the title is wrong, perhaps should be "unwittingly"?

 

[AlterEgo]

The use of "innocent" in the title is wrong, perhaps should be "unwittingly"?

The report does not make any suggestion of this, in fact - the recommendation is a yellow card for all first offences.

Introduction of a ‘Yellow Card’ system’
• Introduce a system that can be used on the first occasion a passenger is identified to have an incorrect ticket for the journey they are making.
• Details of the discrepancy and explanation offered should be recorded and be available to check against on future occasions.

 

[gray1404]

How would they verify I am a Disabled Railcard holder? I assume they'd need ID from me, and wouldn't just take my word I am who I say I am?

I assume they would check against the Railcard database that a disabled persons Railcard had been issued to you. Like with any other type of Railcard.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

I don't understand why they cannot ensure that valid details are entered when a railcard is purchased. Surely this could be a function added to the TIS systems that booking offices use so the details are uploaded as soon as a customer purchases a card.

 

[furlong]

Full marks to Transport Focus for such a well-considered, cogent and timely intervention!

Reformat it into a charter and invite train companies to sign up to its aspirations. Start a campaign and get the press involved in challenging train companies which refuse.

 

[AlterEgo]

I assume they would check against the Railcard database that a disabled persons Railcard had been issued to you. Like with any other type of Railcard.

They don’t know who I am though unless I identify myself somehow, probably with photo ID.

I don't understand why they cannot ensure that valid details are entered when a railcard is purchased. Surely this could be a function added to the TIS systems that booking offices use so the details are uploaded as soon as a customer purchases a card.

They could do that, but won’t. It’s not hard to do either. This is how SNCF does it for example.

 

[30907]

As far as I can see these are not "recommendations" but "areas for examination" and they cover a very wide range of possibilities.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

As far as I can see these are not "recommendations" but "areas for examination" and they cover a very wide range of possibilities.

Is this, in effect, Transport Focus' input to the ORR Review? If so, it's worth bearing in mind that while there's a lot of good stuff there, there's always the risk that it will get watered down (or even ignored) in the review's final report.

 

[John R]

The report does not make any suggestion of this, in fact - the recommendation is a yellow card for all first offences.

Introduction of a ‘Yellow Card’ system’
• Introduce a system that can be used on the first occasion a passenger is identified to have an incorrect ticket for the journey they are making.
• Details of the discrepancy and explanation offered should be recorded and be available to check against on future occasions.

Even if the first occasion turns out, on examination, to be the 50th instance where the passenger has purchased exactly the same "short fare"?

 

[Adam Williams]

All Railcards are now in a central database

Not quite all, but I think it's fair to say that the number that aren't and/or are out of scope of the database backing the RVS is a very small proportion of the railcards currently in circulation.

Including ones issued in Ticket Offices, or from Third Party Retailers?

I believe it covers those purchased from Ticket Offices, though that has to be such a small minority of Railcards purchased these days.

It covers TPRs - when you go to buy from e.g. TrainSplit, it's pretty explicit about it:

---

I note that the BBC's report here seems to suggest that some TOCs already have a "yellow card" system in place. Is there any evidence that this is actually the case, from e.g. this section of the forum?

Some rail companies, such as Cross Country and Southeastern, already have yellow card systems in place

Certainly I've seen some very heavy-handed treatment from TIL on behalf of XC in the past, so would be interested to understand when this supposedly changed.

 

[ainsworth74]

Even if the first occasion turns out, on examination, to be the 50th instance where the passenger has purchased exactly the same "short fare"?

I'm confused, if it's their 50th instance then it's not a first occasion therefore not within scope?

 

[Haywain]

I'm confused, if it's their 50th instance then it's not a first occasion therefore not within scope?

The difference between a first time offending (for want of a better word) and the first time being caught.

 

[ainsworth74]

The difference between a first time offending (for want of a better word) and the first time being caught.

Hmm yes I see. Not personally convinced that's a good enough reason to punish everyone equally however whether they be a legitimately first time offender or not but I get the point being made now.

 

[John R]

Hmm yes I see. Not personally convinced that's a good enough reason to punish everyone equally however whether they be a legitimately first time offender or not but I get the point being made now.

I think there would be a lot of justification for taking action even on an actual first offence where it is clear that there was an obvious intent to evade the correct fare. Buying a short fare from Finsbury Park to Kings Cross which hasn't been scanned at the former could be an example. So even if someone had genuinely forgotten to buy a ticket before boarding, when they remembered they made no attempt to purchase the correct ticket.

The question is how you put something in place that attempts to give a "yellow card" to people who have with no ill-intent fallen foul of the way have come to attention (say running for a train, purchasing online within the first couple of minutes, but then getting picked up 20 mins later for having bought after boarding), but still comes down hard on those determined not to pay the correct fare for their journey.

 

[Haywain]

Hmm yes I see. Not personally convinced that's a good enough reason to punish everyone equally however whether they be a legitimately first time offender or not but I get the point being made now.

I agree with you. I could only see the "yellow card" idea as working if it is issued in writing after the event when the opportunity has been taken yo properly look for previous examples of the same behaviour and to check for previous warnings. In this way it would also allow the warning to be clear, in writing, and clear about the consequences of being caught again.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The question is how you put something in place that attempts to give a "yellow card" to people who have with no ill-intent fallen foul of the way have come to attention (say running for a train, purchasing online within the first couple of minutes, but then getting picked up 20 mins later for having bought after boarding), but still comes down hard on those determined not to pay the correct fare for their journey.

Ultimately this is about changing the assumption when someone is first picked up from them being an offender who has previously got away with it to them being someone who has made an innocent mistake for the first time. Both positions are rather broad brush, and both have their strengths and weaknesses so I suppose the question must be whether the new balance will be better than the old.

 

[BazingaTribe]

Ultimately this is about changing the assumption when someone is first picked up from them being an offender who has previously got away with it to them being someone who has made an innocent mistake for the first time. Both positions are rather broad brush, and both have their strengths and weaknesses so I suppose the question must be whether the new balance will be better than the old.

Yeah, this is the problem. We see enough of the deliberate acts here that in many cases TOCs are entitled to prosecute the first offence.

To give TF the benefit of the doubt, they may be thinking about things like someone realising they haven't paid and not thinking through that, well, people lie and, as has been said, there's a difference between a first time doing something and the first time being caught. We regularly get people here short-faring and calling it a mistake when they get caught, only to know that they did it deliberately (and SFing is never a mistake) and have been doing it for some time.

I also disagree with their comments about strict liability offences. These exist elsewhere, such as in motoring, and are dealt with accordingly up to and including a ban from driving. Strict liability has its uses for very low-level misdemeanours that ultimately either could cause serious injury regardless of intent or place the burden of costs on people who are careful about buying tickets and honest even when they're not forced to be. If intent had to be proved, then there are an awful lot of harmful and dangerous things that would end up unpunishable, all the way up to manslaughter. (As a legal scholar with a Masters, albeit not a lawyer, I learned in the history class I took that tort law evolved precisely because the judicial system needed a way of resolving disputes where intent was difficult to prove but a wrong had still been done.)

I also find the language they use unprofessional -- this isn't a philosophical debate or victim impact statement; it's formal testimony to a report that presumably is able to disentangle competing needs and perspectives and strike the correct balance you mentioned.

However, I also think that there ought to be a downgrading of byelaw offences to where we sit with motoring offences and more formal use of FPNs etc to deal with it. But ultimately there has to be some deterrent to simply forgetting to buy a ticket or losing it etc. Otherwise people will just use the 'I didn't MEAN to' line and wrap a toothless law around their little fingers. There needs to be a balance struck here and I don't think TF are thinking it through in terms of why strict liability exists and how that might have a practical impact on the railways' ability to enforce revenue collection.

 

[Hadders]

Nothing significant will change until the legal framework around ticketing and ticketing irregularities changes. This requires urgent reform as the Regulation of the Railways Act, Railway Byelaws and even Penalty Fares Regulations were written in the era before it was possible to buy tickets online or through apps.

For example, a ticket purchased onboard from a guard after the train has departed is clearly a valid ticket. But what if the ticket is purchased onboard from an app after the train has departed? As it currently stands the law is silent on this.

Have we reached the point where there should be a ticket machine at the entrance to every station? Arguably that would remove much of the ambiguity around the requirement to purchase a ticket before boarding.

Should train companies be allowed to conduct 'data trawls' looking for ticketing irregularities? We regaularly see this when someone has come to the attention of a train company but what about when someone hasn't. We've seen reports from people getting contacted about apparent irregularities when they haven't been stopped. Is this acceptable?

Then we come to penalties. Who should be able to issue Penalty Fares? When should they be used? We're increasingly seeing details taken so that a data trawl can take place rather than dealing with the issue. I'm generally in favour of keeping matters out of court but we often see cases of industrial level fare evasion that really ought to end up in court. I know why the train companies don't want to prosecute as out of court settlements are more lucrative to them but should is this the right approach?

Once you start looking under te surface this is all quite complicated stuff, both legally and morally. As I said at the start I don't think anything will change until we see reform of the law and I douby that's on the Government's agenda any time soon.

 

[RPI]

Then we come to penalties. Who should be able to issue Penalty Fares? When should they be used? We're increasingly seeing details taken so that a data trawl can take place rather than dealing with the issue. I'm generally in favour of keeping matters out of court but we often see cases of industrial level fare evasion that really ought to end up in court. I know why the train companies don't want to prosecute as out of court settlements are more lucrative to them but should is this the right approach?

I'm not sure that's the case, from what I gather, all of the money goes to the treasury anyway.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, major simplification of fares is the best way forward as it rules out so many grey areas, but I'm also in favour of some form of warning system that is actually backed up with a database, first offence for minor misdemeanor and you get issued a PF but the Penalty element is waived if paid in 21 days on the first time.

Problem is, many people get warned now, but they don't heed the warning and as it's often verbal, they just keep doing it until they get caught and then try playing the victim, for every person I PF/MG there are ten that I "let off with a warning" and sell a ticket.

There also needs to be a standard set by the DfT across all TOC's, the "Admin fee" should be the same everywhere, forgotten railcards process should be the same regardless of TOC, all operators should have PF's as an option.

Revenue Protection policy should be the same as the NRCoT - or even included in it so that it doesn't matter if you're stopped in Carlisle or Penzance (I'll leave Scotland out of this for now), you should be treated the same, firm but fair and with a clear independent means of appeal as a final resort.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Revenue Protection policy should be the same as the NRCoT - or even included in it so that it doesn't matter if you're stopped in Carlisle or Penzance (I'll leave Scotland out of this for now), you should be treated the same, firm but fair and with a clear independent means of appeal as a final resort.

Consistency of treatment of when it's allowed to pay on the train or at the destination should reduce the number of people caught out by this. Also allowing purchase by app for the train being travelled on would cut out some disputes. There would need some safeguards against "pay when challenged".

 

[Egg Centric]

There are so many ways a passenger can inadvertently break the rules. Would this yellow card be against the particular manner in which they broke the rules on the occasion they're caught or against all rule breaking? IMO the former would be so open to abuse it has to be the latter, but then we're not really solving the problem. So it would have to be done as @Haywain says in writing and in my view with a relatively exhaustive "list of bad ideas" so that the passenger can no longer claim ignorance if caught doing something else wrong.

But then look how many posters in this subforum claim some sort of mental health problem / neuro processing difficulty. Some of them are clearly trying it on but some will be legitimate and expecting them to read and understand said list of bad ideas is perhaps going to be coming up against disability legislation, no?

 

[BazingaTribe]

I'm not sure that's the case, from what I gather, all of the money goes to the treasury anyway.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, major simplification of fares is the best way forward as it rules out so many grey areas, but I'm also in favour of some form of warning system that is actually backed up with a database, first offence for minor misdemeanor and you get issued a PF but the Penalty element is waived if paid in 21 days on the first time.

Problem is, many people get warned now, but they don't heed the warning and as it's often verbal, they just keep doing it until they get caught and then try playing the victim, for every person I PF/MG there are ten that I "let off with a warning" and sell a ticket.

There also needs to be a standard set by the DfT across all TOC's, the "Admin fee" should be the same everywhere, forgotten railcards process should be the same regardless of TOC, all operators should have PF's as an option.

Revenue Protection policy should be the same as the NRCoT - or even included in it so that it doesn't matter if you're stopped in Carlisle or Penzance (I'll leave Scotland out of this for now), you should be treated the same, firm but fair and with a clear independent means of appeal as a final resort.

Public ownership of the railways will go some way to helping establish consistency, I hope.

Locally to me, gating Reading West has hopefully made a dent not only in fare evasion but in other kinds of anti-social behaviour there. Better pro-active facilities would also hopefully be on the agenda to help cut down on the mistakes being made, as would better facilities like wifi to enable people to buy on phones etc.