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.
This seems very sensible in theory, however, and some may need to ensure they're sat down, I do agree with some of :
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.
We all know that a balance of probabilities has some deceptively heavy weights, and the TOC get to use all of them. Outside of court, if the TOC says you did this pay us money, you have to pay it, or escalate at your own risk and cost. We see frequently from many TOCs this sort of behaviour so it is clear they're happy to take the Michael.
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.
The obvious question (which i feel is a fair one) is how does the operator distinguish the difference? If my and my partner went out now and bought a brace of Retford to Edinburgh FOR with a two together railcard discount, how does the guard determine whether our Railcard running out in December was a genuine mistake or an attempt to evade the fare, given i've only needed to show the railcard around 3 times since we have had one in 2015 (excluding purchase of tickets at a ticket office) it is easy to argue i could be trying it on (which in scenario i would be because i know it has run out).
A word i use frequently (and even more so of late it seems) is CONSISTENCY. It is a word and concept that i believe to be banned within the railway. If one guard or revenue inspector is going to prosecute someone for an expired railcard of xx days then every guard or revenue inspector must do the same. Alternatively, another penalty can be introduced but it must be consistently applied and enforced.
To directly answer the topic heading, in my opinion, do train companies have too much power in relation to ticketing disputes, i think in general terms NO, what i think they DO have too much of, is discretion. It leads to more situations where passengers are inconsistently treated. Have the rules and stick to them. By all means have suitable, documented exceptions, by all means have a suitable appeals process but if the rules are enforced uniformly across the network you solve many problems.
And to reply to the last sentence from Miami above, I do agree that better understanding of the rules is required for many staff on the railway and those found to be deliberately taking steps to secure additional financial gain for themselves (selling tickets where not required in order to obtain commission) should be dealt with accordingly but it is crucial to identify the route cause of this failure and take steps to eliminate the cause. Most of the time it will be poor training that leads to this result. It is unacceptable to penalise a guard for charging for a new ticket if they have been led to believe that the passenger does not have a valid ticket. Some operators are taught in their training to default to the passenger being in the wrong.
For example :
1 : A valid ticket is passed
2 : An invalid ticket is rejected and it is down to the staff member to choose what to do, be it a new ticket, penalty fare if they are allowed to issue, or prosecution.
3 : A ticket that (through no fault of the passenger) the staff member is unsure about, treat it as an invalid ticket and invite the passenger to appeal the decision by contacting customer services.
If this is sort of thing is still being taught (i'm not guessing, this is the gist from documents from a now superseded operator that i sadly would never be able to put here publicly as it would likely get me and the forum into trouble) then it is incredibly difficult to justify penalising a member of staff for making a "mistake", and the idea of a criminal record is really quite ludicrous.