Do train companies have too much power in relation to ticketing disputes?

[miami]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/penalties-after-railcards-expire.217025/

What message does it give to your customer when you threaten them with court for a small admin mistake? It makes me think I'd be better off driving instead.

Indeed, that's certainly the sensible choice if you want to avoid byzantian restrictions and ridiculous penalities, the railway can be a very customer hostile organisation with an asymetric power profile. The penalties when the railways make an honest mistake don't exist. The railways can detain you, threaten you with legal action, and publically shame you, despite having a valid ticket. When you appeal they'll ignore it, and it's only once you go public that you finally get an apology letter.

Imagine Tesco did that, publicly accusing you of shoplifting, detaining you, then sending you threatening letters to give you a criminal record, when you did nothing of the sort. I'd expect large compensation and public apology for such a PR failure.

Be aware though that there are penalties for honest mistakes in driving too. I forgot to pay a dartford toll last year, fortunately unlike the railway, they let you off for a first time offence.

 

[FGW_DID]

Indeed, that's certainly the sensible choice if you want to avoid byzantian restrictions and ridiculous penalities, the railway can be a very customer hostile organisation with an asymetric power profile. The penalties when the railways make an honest mistake don't exist. The railways can detain you, threaten you with legal action, and publically shame you, despite having a valid ticket. When you appeal they'll ignore it, and it's only once you go public that you finally get an apology letter.

Imagine Tesco did that, publicly accusing you of shoplifting, detaining you, then sending you threatening letters to give you a criminal record, when you did nothing of the sort. I'd expect large compensation and public apology for such a PR failure.

Be aware though that there are penalties for honest mistakes in driving too. I forgot to pay a dartford toll last year, fortunately unlike the railway, they let you off for a first time offence.

What are you ranting about?

if you have bought a ticket with an expired railcard, it’s not a valid ticket. Nobody is talking about being threatened with prosecution whilst having a valid ticket! Jeeez.

As for switching to driving, what do think will happen, if you happened to be stopped by the Police and you’re insurance ran out the day before?

 

[miami]

if you have bought a ticket with an expired railcard, it’s not a valid ticket. Nobody is talking about being threatened with prosecution whilst having a valid ticket! Jeeez.

In my experience many railway staff don't care if you have a valid ticket or not, nor are interested enough to even understand what a restriction code is. When they are eventually proved wrong there is no penalty. In my opinion this is far worse that someone forgetting to renew their railard after it expires - months after they were last able to use it.

 

[londonteacher]

In my experience many railway staff don't care if you have a valid ticket or not, nor are interested enough to even understand what a restriction code is. When they are eventually proved wrong there is no penalty. In my opinion this is far worse that someone forgetting to renew their railard after it expires - months after they were last able to use it.

That is not what this thread is about though. It is about having a non-valid ticket.

 

[jon0844]

In my experience many railway staff don't care if you have a valid ticket or not, nor are interested enough to even understand what a restriction code is. When they are eventually proved wrong there is no penalty. In my opinion this is far worse that someone forgetting to renew their railard after it expires - months after they were last able to use it.

You must be extremely unlucky.

 

[miami]

That is not what this thread is about though. It is about having a non-valid ticket.

It's about how the standard response to people making a minor mistake is "grovel lots and pay a £500 fine and you may avoid a criminal record"

Compare with the other way round where the railway makes a mistake is "oh that doesn't happen very much"

My experience with forgetting to pay the dart charge showed me what transport should be. "OK, this is the first time you forgot, we understand, just pay it now and don't forget again!"

 

[30907]

It's about how the standard response to people making a minor mistake is "grovel lots and pay a £500 fine and you may avoid a criminal record"

the going rate for an administrative settlement has gone up but it's still below £100.

My experience with forgetting to pay the dart charge showed me what transport should be. "OK, this is the first time you forgot, we understand, just pay it now and don't forget again!"

Excellent, but only possible because there is a record of every trip you make. Fortunately, there isn't a compulsory ID check on rail or bus travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In answer to the thread title, yes, in my view they do. The Byelaw and RoRA entries relating to fare evasion should be repealed. In their place should come Penalty Fares, pursued via the civil courts if necessary and with a statutory appeals body, and the use of a conventional fraud charge in serious cases of deception. Basically they should be in the same position as private parking companies.

To me the present system of "pay us whatever we say or we'll prosecute you" is tantamount to blackmail.

 

[AlterEgo]

In answer to the thread title, yes, in my view they do. The Byelaw and RoRA entries relating to fare evasion should be repealed. In their place should come Penalty Fares, pursued via the civil courts if necessary and with a statutory appeals body, and the use of a conventional fraud charge in serious cases of deception. Basically they should be in the same position as private parking companies.

To me the present system of "pay us whatever we say or we'll prosecute you" is tantamount to blackmail.

Fully agree. I’d be much more comfortable for low level offences - and especially the strict liability ones - to be scrapped altogether, which would avoid criminalising a lot of people who make an innocent mistake.

I’d also be comfortable with actual, proven deception to go to a fraud trial. It’s harder to prove and the railway companies would have to work harder to prove intent than they currently do.

In summary, at the bottom end of the culpability scale - decriminalisation, and at the top end of the scale harsher penalties and actual fraud charges.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

In answer to the thread title, yes, in my view they do. The Byelaw and RoRA entries relating to fare evasion should be repealed. In their place should come Penalty Fares, pursued via the civil courts if necessary and with a statutory appeals body, and the use of a conventional fraud charge in serious cases of deception. Basically they should be in the same position as private parking companies.

To me the present system of "pay us whatever we say or we'll prosecute you" is tantamount to blackmail.

In another thread I've pointed out going via the civil route can make things worse. Car parking issues go via this route, and the number of CCJs issued has rocketed. 5 or 6 years of damaged credit. Selling debts on to agencies, bailiffs turning up. Some people would do far better with a non recordable Byelaw conviction.

The TOC would also only have to make their case to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.

A customer is also unlikely to be able to recoup their defence costs even if successful. Whereas a claimant winning gets the case issuing fee awarded, around a £50 contribution to their legal/solicitor costs plus the amount being sued for.

I suspect the vast majority of fare evaders are criminal, and will not pay or pay the right amount regardless of whether it's civil or criminal.

Pros and cons of both, but you do not want a repeat of the private car parking industry.

Even if you repealed the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, a TOC could easily just switch to the Fraud Act, Theft Act or Forgery and Counterfeiting Act instead, with even more severe consequences! Repealing legislation doesn't help, there's always an alternative.

 

[miami]

Excellent, but only possible because there is a record of every trip you make. Fortunately, there isn't a compulsory ID check on rail or bus travel.

The Dart crossing checks everyone crossing

The railways can choose to check tickets. It usually decides not to bother - even on mostly empty trains with 90 minutes between stops as on my trip from Crewe to London and back last week.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

The Dart crossing checks everyone crossing

The railways can choose to check tickets. It usually decides not to bother - even on mostly empty trains with 90 minutes between stops as on my trip from Crewe to London and back last week.

It seems very old fashioned to check tickets manually on every single train, especially when the vast majority of passengers will be entirely genuine.

Far better to leave people in peace for most of the time, and every so often have a well publicised crackdown and make some examples. I'm sure that with advances in data and technology should inevitably lead to a more "intelligence led" approach anyway.

Enforcement will increasingly move to an analyst rather than an inspector! Can't give an analyst a thump!

 

[Haywain]

The Dart crossing checks everyone crossing

This is just as bad as the supermarket analogy. The Dart crossing is something where the single point of entry and single point of exit cannot be avoided, unlike a train journey with many stops, different train operators and potential routes. I once got taken to court for failing to pay Vehicle Excise Duty but that also has nothing to do with paying for rail tickets.

The Dart crossing checks everyone crossing

It doesn't check everyone, it checks every vehicle.

 

[Watershed]

Even if you repealed the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, a TOC could easily just switch to the Fraud Act, Theft Act or Forgery and Counterfeiting Act instead, with even more severe consequences!

No they couldn't. The conduct leading to vast majority of prosecutions (or threatened prosecutions) under RoRA would not amount to a crime, let alone one of fraud or forgery, if it happened outside the rail industry.

Sure, there are a handful of people who get off more lightly because the railway often uses RoRA as a catch-all. But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.

In another thread I've pointed out going via the civil route can make things worse. Car parking issues go via this route, and the number of CCJs issued has rocketed. 5 or 6 years of damaged credit. Selling debts on to agencies, bailiffs turning up. Some people would do far better with a non recordable Byelaw conviction.

The practical consequences of an unpaid CCJ are largely the same as an unpaid criminal fine - your property can be taken, or your wages garnished, and it might disbar you from some jobs. By contrast, it's unlikely to cause you any immigration/visa related problems and it that sense it's a much less significant penalty.

Making the railways use the civil Courts would also regularise things, due to the Civil Procedure Rules they would then have to follow, as opposed to the current mixed bag approach (where the penalty depends on whether or not you have to deal with outfits like TIL).

Notably, the railway would then be obliged to proactively offer a chance to settle the matter out of Court in all cases.

The TOC would also only have to make their case to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.

I think this is just about the only disadvantage to decriminalising such issues. That said, I think that the civil Courts, particularly Circuit Judges, are likely to give a fairer and more impartial hearing to a defended claim than lay Magistrates give to a defended prosecution (where the 'victim and prosecutor' position of the TOC leads to an inherent conflict of interest, even if only subconscious).

A customer is also unlikely to be able to recoup their defence costs even if successful. Whereas a claimant winning gets the case issuing fee awarded, around a £50 contribution to their legal/solicitor costs plus the amount being sued for.

Costs are by no means automatically recoverable where a prosecution is successfully defended - which is perverse because, really, you need legal representation if you want to defend yourself against a prosecution. By contrast, it's perfectly feasible to defend yourself against a civil claim, indeed there are lots of online and free resources to help you prepare.

The default costs award in the Small Claims Track is that the loser pays the Court fees, interest, and the winner's travel and immediate costs of attending the hearing. That's likely to end up being, at worst, about the same as the standard costs and victim surcharge added to criminal sentences.

I suspect the vast majority of fare evaders are criminal, and will not pay or pay the right amount regardless of whether it's civil or criminal.

Far from everyone who is convicted (or threatened with prosecution) is a fare evader. It is just that the law criminalises a wide scope of conduct, including conduct which would not amount to an offence in any other industry.

 

[miami]

Ahh the usual "but the railway is special and needs the ability to privatly arrest and prosecute people" excuses.

Far from everyone who is convicted (or threatened with prosecution) is a fare evader

Indeed, if someone is evading a fare (or evading tax), then prosecute them for fraud. If someone forgot the railcard they haven't used for 18 months had expired, then in a sane world you help them buy a new one, not drag them through the courts.

I'd be happy if every time the railway made a mistake, refusing to let people board the train despite having a valid ticket for example, they were fined a portion of their revenue (not profit), say 1 weeks revenue, and the staff member(s) involved was given a criminal record.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I'd be happy if every time the railway made a mistake, refusing to let people board the train despite having a valid ticket for example, they were fined a portion of their revenue (not profit), say 1 weeks revenue, and the staff member(s) involved was given a criminal record.

For what exactly?

 

[AlterEgo]

The Dart crossing checks everyone crossing

The railways can choose to check tickets. It usually decides not to bother - even on mostly empty trains with 90 minutes between stops as on my trip from Crewe to London and back last week.

Yes but you’re (wilfully) missing the point. DART Crossing knows who you are. The railway doesn’t.

 

[Haywain]

If someone forgot the railcard they haven't used for 18 months had expired, then in a sane world you help them buy a new one,

What do you do if they haven't got £30 available or no longer qualify for the railcard?

 

[nanstallon]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/penalties-after-railcards-expire.217025/



Indeed, that's certainly the sensible choice if you want to avoid byzantian restrictions and ridiculous penalities, the railway can be a very customer hostile organisation with an asymetric power profile. The penalties when the railways make an honest mistake don't exist. The railways can detain you, threaten you with legal action, and publically shame you, despite having a valid ticket. When you appeal they'll ignore it, and it's only once you go public that you finally get an apology letter.

Imagine Tesco did that, publicly accusing you of shoplifting, detaining you, then sending you threatening letters to give you a criminal record, when you did nothing of the sort. I'd expect large compensation and public apology for such a PR failure.

Be aware though that there are penalties for honest mistakes in driving too. I forgot to pay a dartford toll last year, fortunately unlike the railway, they let you off for a first time offence.

I totally agree. A tendency to always want to have the upper hand and treat customers as at best naughty children and at worst criminals, is very off-putting. The ridiculously complicated system of rules about what trains you can use with your ticket, makes an honest mistake very easy to make. The old problem is that the British don't on the whole do customer service.

 

[RJ]

Ahh the usual "but the railway is special and needs the ability to privatly arrest and prosecute people" excuses.



Indeed, if someone is evading a fare (or evading tax), then prosecute them for fraud. If someone forgot the railcard they haven't used for 18 months had expired, then in a sane world you help them buy a new one, not drag them through the courts.

To be fair and balanced, a lot of discretion is shown to people in those circumstances which goes unreported.

And there’s a proportion of the population who are of the mentality that if discretion exists, they are automatically entitled to it and can thus travel without a valid ticket with impunity. Dishonesty/cheating/fraud is a part of some people’s way of life and there has to be rules to enforce against this kind of behaviour to prevent loss and expense for others.

Sometimes the railways get it wrong. Some staff don’t/won’t follow the correct procedures for checking the validity of tickets they are unfamiliar with and end up persecuting customers who have presented a valid ticket, or causing disruption to the journey they paid for. Revenue departments and the BTP have seemingly unlimited resources to expend on putting these types of customers in their place.

This is something the railways are unapologetic for - so the onus is on the customer to know how to deal with it.

 

[miami]

For what exactly?

Balance.

If you use your power to accuse someone of a crime, something that your training should mean never happens (because if you're unsure you should never accuse someone), and get gain from that (either direct monetary gain from selling a ticket that should not be sold, or some other form of gain for your company), or if you detain them, that deserves to be a criminal offence far more than forgetting to renew your railcard (not that railcards should exist anyway - just give the discount to everyone, more people encouraged to travel, job done)

 

[Haywain]

Balance

That isn’t a crime. If you want rail staff prosecuted what crime do you propose they are charged with?

 

[nanstallon]

Balance.

If you use your power to accuse someone of a crime, something that your training should mean never happens (because if you're unsure you should never accuse someone), and get gain from that (either direct monetary gain from selling a ticket that should not be sold, or some other form of gain for your company), or if you detain them, that deserves to be a criminal offence far more than forgetting to renew your railcard (not that railcards should exist anyway - just give the discount to everyone, more people encouraged to travel, job done)

The fares system needs simplifying. The British terror of not extracting every possible penny from every traveller has made fares too complicated. It is very easy to get on the wrong train, and that doesn't deserve criminal prosecution or being blackmailed into paying an extortionate settlement figure. And why should a TOC be able to exploit the need for workers to get to the office on time?

 

[miami]

The bylaws would be updated to make accusing a passenger of breaking the law when they hadn't a criminal offence.

As for actual laws, you'd make it an absolute offense (false imprisonment) for anyone other than a police officer to detain a passenger with a valid ticket on the person who is in charge of the barriers preventing their departure.

 

[Vespa]

Do railway company staffs have powers to detain you against your will during a ticket check ?

Otherwise you can simply walk off ?

 

[Sonic1234]

IMO there should be a civil penalty similar to parking tickets: £25/£50 for a lesser offence (no railcard) and £35/£70 for a higher offence (no ticket). The problem with criminalisation is that once someone has a criminal record, they become a second class citizen with reduced prospects in society which leads to further offences. Why not start stealing from Tesco and dodging even more fares once you've got a record? Especially if you're in the position where you can't pay the fines. You sometimes hear about people in local news who have 100s of petty crime offences, probably because they got demoted to second class status and thought why bother any more.

 

[Haywain]

The problem with criminalisation is that once someone has a criminal record, they become a second class citizen with reduced prospects in society which leads to further offences.

What utter claptrap. A bye-law conviction has minimal consequences other than having to pay a fine.

 

[SteveM70]

Do railway company staffs have powers to detain you against your will during a ticket check ?

Otherwise you can simply walk off ?

I don’t know, but I do know that it’s happened. My eldest son, then aged 16, was detained at Hebden Bridge for about 45 minutes by one of Northern’s roving ticket checking teams. His offence? Asking for a single from Huddersfield to Hebden with his 16 - 18 student card, paying the correct amount, but being given the identically priced child single ticket. They wouldn’t even let him go to the toilet, even though the toilets are further down the platform away from the exit. It took many letters and phone calls to extract an apology from Northern, and even then it was the passive aggressive “we’re sorry if he felt upset”. Tossers

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Do railway company staffs have powers to detain you against your will during a ticket check ?

Otherwise you can simply walk off ?

They do but ONLY if the member of staff has a reasonable (not necessarily correct) belief that you have failed to pay / failed to hand over a valid ticket or similar AND refuse to provide a false name and address (or provide a false one) AND the detention is only as long as it takes to hand you over to the police / theoretically a Magistrate. This is under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.


The other power or arrest / detention they have is if you wilfully impede or obstruct a member of railway staff in the execution of their duties. This is very broad and is akin to obstructing a police officer. Can also be detained for trespassing. The law also allows railway staff to ask for others to assist them with the detention. Regulation of Railways Act 1840.

In addition any person, not just a member of railway staff, has the power to detain without warrant, the so called citizens arrest. However, this would have to be for something reasonably serious, not just petty crime or routine fare evasion. Possession of counterfeit or fraudulent tickets would be a permitted reason as it is a potentially "indictable" offence. It must also be necessary to prevent further offences, prevent escape and it not be practical for a police officer to make the arrest at the time.

Generally, I believe staff are strongly discouraged (but not banned) by employers from using these powers, (the staff are legally allowed by statute to rely on them regardless of what an employer says. You can't contractually override primary legislation!). However, they are still very useful because if a passenger alleges they have been detained, they offer a strong, perhaps even an absolute defence for the member of railway staff if they are accused of false imprisonment or assault.

The Crown Prosecution Service produce a handy guide:

Transport Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

As for the nonsense posted earlier that other offences / legislation can't be easily used. Even the CPS say:

Prosecutors should consider using the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006 (See CPS Fraud Act 2006 Legal Guidance), where there is evidence of premeditation, or persistence, or repeat offending, or large loss by the transport authority. Where tickets have been altered or defaced, prosecutors should consider a charge under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (See CPS Forgery and Counterfeiting Legal Guidance).

Buying a discounted ticket when knowingly not entitled is premeditation, similarly travelling deliberately without a valid ticket. The Fraud Act 2006 would more than cover intentional fare evasion, and was specifically designed to be very broad and all encompassing with not especially high hurdles to prove the offence. Repealing the railway specific legislation does nothing to help. You are always going to be able to make a case that somebody intentionally caused a loss to another, or made an unlawful gain for themselves, e.g. intentionally buying a child ticket to save money.

All that can be done to prevent all of this is to ban private prosecution, but a lot of intentional fare evasion would still be in the public interest, especially at TOCs who receive extensive public funds, so the Crown may well still proceed. Banning private prosecution in England is simply not going to happen in any event, it would cause so much difficulty with other legislation it would take decades to unpick and amend it all.

 

[Watershed]

As for the nonsense posted earlier that other offences / legislation can't be easily used. Even the CPS say:

As the CPS say, fraud and related offences should be considered where there is:

evidence of premeditation, or persistence, or repeat offending, or large loss by the transport authority

The vast majority of current railway prosecutions do not fall into any of those categories, and would not constitute an offence in any other context.