Is the Penalty Fares system working

[BenSpiers5852]

This post is more aimed at those who are involved in ticket checking, but I'd be interested to hear peoples opinions on this.

Any sort of fare evasion gets under my skin a little especially since COVID started as the railway has been in a little financial trouble in general- we need everyone to pay their fare to help upkeep services and reduce the fare increases and cost to the tax payer.

Having worked a gate line for 18 months, I think the consequences for avoiding paying your fare can be way too soft and just a minor inconvenience for someone. There are also not enough revenue protection inspections across the railway network and a tougher crackdown is needed especially on repeat offenders. I found that there was a minority that would actively avoid paying their fare- pushing through ticket barriers, climbing over fences etc, and a much larger majority of chancers- people who just wanted to save a few pounds without even considering the legal or moral implications of doing so- people paying one stop to get through the barriers, people over 15 using a child rate ticket etc. It was difficult for me personally working out who made a genuine mistake and who intended to get off without paying the correct fare... some people are just good actors I suppose. As a Gate Line assistant there was very little I could do at the time other than request that someone pay (most gate line staff are not penalty fares trained and are there for safety and customer assistance). I also found that although it is a criminal offence to avoid paying for a ticket, 9 out of 10 times BTP weren't too interested even if we reported a repeat offender.

Anyway, what are your experiences and what do you think about the system- should we be pushing harder for prosecutions, carry out more inspections, increase the penalty fare or do you think what we have works

 

[miklcct]

I think the penalty fare needs to be about £80 - £100, in line with other comparable systems around the world, and decriminalise the strict liability offence of failure to present a ticket, leaving RoRA (intent to avoid payment) as the main tool to combat repeat offenders.

The current level of £20 is not enough as a deterrent for fare evasion.

 

[Nova1]

The current level of £20 is not enough as a deterrent for fare evasion.

Lots of people know they can get away for it and never pay for a ticket. I personally always have a ticket, but know of people who travel every day with no ticket because they know they won't get caught. In this case the worst that's likely to happen is the guard will sell them a normal ticket. I have seen actual revenue protection only twice (over about a year and a half) of travelling with West Midlands Railway. My ticket is rarely even checked by guards - and my railcard even less. Occasionally when I travel with a smart card guards don't bother checking the card - they just see the card and say that's fine.

I suppose what would be the most effective would be gate lines wherever possible at staffed stations, and a significant increase in enforcement... but this costs money, and of course it's up to the TOC if it's worth doing this (it might not be)

 

[Starmill]

If your aim is to have revenue protection which is at its most effective as a revenue block, in my view the best solution is to engage in a joint operation with the police. This allows ID/addresses to be checked by officers rather than the company staff, and anyone who gives false details or runs can be arrested. It's also amazing how many people in some cities try to avoid paying for their train tickets who are also doing other much more nefarious things which are of interest to the police, such as carrying weapons. Regular use of this type of block will "catch" significantly more of the tricky cases where gateline staff are effectively powerless.

The obvious disadvantage of this is cost. It's so expensive to pay for the officers' time in the numbers needed that it's not necccesarily going to be viable at scale, certainly not at the scale needed to change behaviour.

If you're talking about SWR gatelines, which I guess is what you are hinting at, they're in general much more 'leaky' than neighbouring GWR's, partly because of the much greater use of cheaper agency staff they make and partly because they don't have revenue protection responsibilities in gateline grades, unless this has changed, they're just customer service focused roles.

I also found that although it is a criminal offence to avoid paying for a ticket, 9 out of 10 times BTP weren't too interested even if we reported a repeat offender.

Unfortunately this is principally a funding issue. There aren't enough officers to deal with the more serious demands on their time, let alone calls that are only about fare evasion. In order to pass the public interest test for the CPS to act against a fare evader it would really need more than a typical train fare costs to be being lost by a single person or linked group of individuals. Both the police and the CPS have very limited time to deal with cases and must prioritise.

 

[miklcct]

Lots of people know they can get away for it and never pay for a ticket. I personally always have a ticket, but know of people who travel every day with no ticket because they know they won't get caught. In this case the worst that's likely to happen is the guard will sell them a normal ticket. I have seen actual revenue protection only twice (over about a year and a half) of travelling with West Midlands Railway. My ticket is rarely even checked by guards - and my railcard even less. Occasionally when I travel with a smart card guards don't bother checking the card - they just see the card and say that's fine.

I suppose what would be the most effective would be gate lines wherever possible at staffed stations, and a significant increase in enforcement... but this costs money, and of course it's up to the TOC if it's worth doing this (it might not be)

Gatelines cost money but not a fortune!

I remember a conversation about a staff seeing split tickets at Brockenhurst on a CrossCountry train which are not allowed by the rules, but he said he saw them a few times already on the day and didn't charge the passenger for a new ticket or a penalty fare.

This strongly suggests to me that the revenue lost due to a complicated ticket system and timetables making it hard for passengers to comply will be much greater than the fare evaded by dishonest travellers. A fare simplification is desperately needed to increase ticket compliance!

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I think the penalty fare needs to be about £80 - £100, in line with other comparable systems around the world, and decriminalise the strict liability offence of failure to present a ticket, leaving RoRA (intent to avoid payment) as the main tool to combat repeat offenders.

The current level of £20 is not enough as a deterrent for fare evasion.

Our TOC is in the process of doing just this, £100 penalty fare. Hopefully this will have a big impact on the regular fare evaders as it will no longer make it financially viable to risk getting caught

 

[Class800]

Gatelines cost money but not a fortune!

I remember a conversation about a staff seeing split tickets at Brockenhurst on a CrossCountry train which are not allowed by the rules, but he said he saw them a few times already on the day and didn't charge the passenger for a new ticket or a penalty fare.

This strongly suggests to me that the revenue lost due to a complicated ticket system and timetables making it hard for passengers to comply will be much greater than the fare evaded by dishonest travellers. A fare simplification is desperately needed to increase ticket compliance!

Split tickets are permitted unless the train does not call at the station where the split is made (exception for season tickets and rovers/rangers) - so there may be more to this?

 

[skyhigh]

Our TOC is in the process of doing just this, £100 penalty fare. Hopefully this will have a big impact on the regular fare evaders as it will no longer make it financially viable to risk getting caught

More than just one TOC, there was consultation regarding a change across the board which gave the outcome of:

Following publication of this consultation response, DfT will update the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 to replace the current methodology for calculating the value of the penalty fare. We will introduce a surcharge on top of the price of the applicable single fare of £100, which will be reduced to £50 if paid within 21 days.

The appeals process introduced in 2018 will remain and any appeal will ‘stop the clock’ on the 21-day period during which a reduced charge is payable.

Effectively meaning the new system will be a Penalty Fare of £50 + the fare due, increasing to £100 + the fare due if not paid within 21 days.

Penalty fare value reform: consultation outcome

www.gov.uk

 

[district]

It was difficult for me personally working out who made a genuine mistake and who intended to get off without paying the correct fare...

I have worked on Gatelines so I understand how you feel completely, but as difficult as it is, this is not something you need to worry about as Gateline staff. As you’ve said you are there for customer service and safety only.

You should keep reporting fare evasion, as a lot more goes on behind the scenes with these reports than you may be aware of.

 

[30907]

Split tickets are permitted unless the train does not call at the station where the split is made (exception for season tickets and rovers/rangers) - so there may be more to this?

In this case, XC stopped at Brockenhurst pre COVID and will presumably eventually do so again, so using discretion makes good sense.

decriminalise the strict liability offence of failure to present a ticket, leaving RoRA (intent to avoid payment) as the main tool to combat repeat offenders.

The problem is that a flat PF system (even at a higher level) doesn't deter repeat offenders, as another current thread shows. The Byelaw offence is straightforward to prove and hits the pocket significantly harder.
An alternative might be a sliding scale of PFs after (say) the second offence in 6 months - I believe German speeding fines work that way (but I was only geblitzt the once so haven't tested it ...)

 

[AlterEgo]

The problem is that a flat PF system (even at a higher level) doesn't deter repeat offenders, as another current thread shows. The Byelaw offence is straightforward to prove and hits the pocket significantly harder.

At £20 a time it doesn't, but at £50-100 a time it does. It becomes much lest cost efficient for offenders that way.

 

[STINT47]

I would hope that if a passenger gas repeat penalty fares issued the TOC will cancel the last one and go for prosecution.

On my regular journey the fare is £7.80 and ticket checks are infrequent. I might as well just pay £20 every few months as I would still be in profit if there is no chance of prosecution.

 

[swt_passenger]

In this case, XC stopped at Brockenhurst pre COVID and will presumably eventually do so again, so using discretion makes good sense.

It seems very like the guard showed discretion doesn’t it. Bit of an obvious own goal if someone set up a split at a station XC aren’t currently calling at…

 

[Starmill]

I would hope that if a passenger gas repeat penalty fares issued the TOC will cancel the last one and go for prosecution.

I don't think that's permitted under the regulations.

 

[Tallguy]

I hate deliberate fare evaders with a vengeance. My local station (Princes Risborough) does not have ticket gates. The PF should be £75 and there should be a lot more RP staff on the trains and platforms enforcing ticket checks. When I lived at West Worthing and commuted into London there was a ticket check every day, both ways. Bet that doesn’t happen now….

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't think that's permitted under the regulations.

They’re surely allowed to check records before they get round to issuing a PF though?

 

[Bevan Price]

Whilst I have no sympathy for fraudsters who avoid paying, the problem is that innocent travellers can also be penalised due to the often flawed systems of selling tickets. That includes lack of sufficient ticket office staff and defective or over-complicated ticket vending machines -- and an assumption in some quarters that everybody unable to purchase the correct ticket is a criminal trying to avoid payment.

 

[RPI]

Whilst I have no sympathy for fraudsters who avoid paying, the problem is that innocent travellers can also be penalised due to the often flawed systems of selling tickets. That includes lack of sufficient ticket office staff and defective or over-complicated ticket vending machines -- and an assumption in some quarters that everybody unable to purchase the correct ticket is a criminal trying to avoid payment.

Not so much of an issue these days, majority of people have e tickets, even my 82 year old grandad uses e tickets now

 

[Starmill]

They’re surely allowed to check records before they get round to issuing a PF though?

I certainly can't see why not, yes.

 

[Bevan Price]

Not so much of an issue these days, majority of people have e tickets, even my 82 year old grandad uses e tickets now

Even those who don't book in advance because they decide that day's weather would be nice enough for a trip to a shopping or seaside destination?
Or those who don't trust their phone batteries to last long enough to complete return trips?
(Personally, I have hardly travelled anywhere since Covid, so I am out of touch with the current system.)

 

[AlterEgo]

Whilst I have no sympathy for fraudsters who avoid paying, the problem is that innocent travellers can also be penalised due to the often flawed systems of selling tickets. That includes lack of sufficient ticket office staff and defective or over-complicated ticket vending machines -- and an assumption in some quarters that everybody unable to purchase the correct ticket is a criminal trying to avoid payment.

How are insufficient ticket office staff a problem? If there is no opportunity to pay, a PF cannot be issued. There is no assumption of criminality associated with a Penalty Fare.

 

[Bevan Price]

How are insufficient ticket office staff a problem? If there is no opportunity to pay, a PF cannot be issued. There is no assumption of criminality associated with a Penalty Fare.

Until some bolshie RPI fails to believe the passenger that no staff or working TVM were available.

 

[RPI]

Even those who don't book in advance because they decide that day's weather would be nice enough for a trip to a shopping or seaside destination?
Or those who don't trust their phone batteries to last long enough to complete return trips?
(Personally, I have hardly travelled anywhere since Covid, so I am out of touch with the current system.)

People buy e tickets on their phone whilst they're sat waiting for their train (some buy them when they're on the train but that's another story)

 

[miklcct]

Split tickets are permitted unless the train does not call at the station where the split is made (exception for season tickets and rovers/rangers) - so there may be more to this?

CrossCountry trains do not call at Brockenhurst with only a few exceptions, while all SWR trains, which form the vast majority of the services, call at Brockenhurst. On a normal weekday, there are 6 SWR trains and 1 CrossCountry train every 2 hours, so passenger may not realise that not all trains call at Brockenhurst. (also I have to be very careful when buying flexible tickets from TrainSplit to avoid choosing services which will get a split at Brockenhurst).

 

[AlterEgo]

Until some bolshie RPI fails to believe the passenger that no staff or working TVM were available.

That’s a problem with the RPI or the railway’s comms, and not the Penalty Fare system.

 

[yorkie]

This post is more aimed at those who are involved in ticket checking, but I'd be interested to hear peoples opinions on this.

Any sort of fare evasion gets under my skin a little especially since COVID started as the railway has been in a little financial trouble in general- we need everyone to pay their fare to help upkeep services and reduce the fare increases and cost to the tax payer.

Having worked a gate line for 18 months, I think the consequences for avoiding paying your fare can be way too soft and just a minor inconvenience for someone. There are also not enough revenue protection inspections across the railway network and a tougher crackdown is needed especially on repeat offenders. I found that there was a minority that would actively avoid paying their fare- pushing through ticket barriers, climbing over fences etc, and a much larger majority of chancers- people who just wanted to save a few pounds without even considering the legal or moral implications of doing so- people paying one stop to get through the barriers, people over 15 using a child rate ticket etc. It was difficult for me personally working out who made a genuine mistake and who intended to get off without paying the correct fare... some people are just good actors I suppose. As a Gate Line assistant there was very little I could do at the time other than request that someone pay (most gate line staff are not penalty fares trained and are there for safety and customer assistance). I also found that although it is a criminal offence to avoid paying for a ticket, 9 out of 10 times BTP weren't too interested even if we reported a repeat offender.

Penalty Fares are not appropriate for the scenarios you describe; there is a mismatch between the thread title and the thread contents.

This is what Chiltern Railways say about Penalty Fares:

https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/timetables/Chiltern%20Penalty%20Fares.pdf

A Penalty Fare is a charge that Chiltern Railways is allowed to make under the Regulations and Rules. It is not a fine, and anyone who is charged one is not being accused of avoiding, or attempting to avoid, paying their fare.

‘Fare dodging’ is a completely different matter: it is a criminal offence and we treat it as such by prosecuting offenders.

Whilst I have no sympathy for fraudsters who avoid paying, the problem is that innocent travellers can also be penalised due to the often flawed systems of selling tickets. That includes lack of sufficient ticket office staff and defective or over-complicated ticket vending machines -- and an assumption in some quarters that everybody unable to purchase the correct ticket is a criminal trying to avoid payment.

That is a flaw of Penalty Fares, which are extortionate charges made to people who make an honest mistake under certain circumstances (or issued to people who are trying to dodge the fare, because it's easier to issue a high priced fare than it would be to take the appropriate legal action)

I think the penalty fare needs to be about £80 - £100, in line with other comparable systems around the world, and decriminalise the strict liability offence of failure to present a ticket, leaving RoRA (intent to avoid payment) as the main tool to combat repeat offenders.

The current level of £20 is not enough as a deterrent for fare evasion.

Penalty Fares are not intended to be a charge made for fare evasion.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I sometimes wonder if they could increase the price of penalty fares (in order to deter fare dodgers as discussed above) but then hand out a lower penalty for someone who can produce a booking confirmation, Apple Pay statement or receipt to prove payment. Naturally, these aren't accepted as tickets, but they do indicate a proof of payment for something, which would help in situations where the customer loses their ticket or makes a genuinely honest mistake.

 

[plymothian]

Penalty Fares are not intended to be a charge made for fare evasion.

No that's not what they are intented to be, but have de facto become as it's an easier and cheaper resolution than using time, effort and money to get a conviction. Some evaders actively ask to be fined as they'll know that the member of staff doesn't have that power or time to do anything about it, kids know they're untouchable, less salubrious passengers know there'll be no back up available and if the BTP are around, they'll be let off eventually as it's too much hassle for them. Putting PFs up to £100 isn't going to help, if people won't pay a local fare of £5 they won't pay £20, let alone £100.

 

[yorkie]

No that's not what they are intented to be, but have de facto become as it's an easier and cheaper resolution than using time, effort and money to get a conviction.

Yes some train companies misuse/misapply Penalty Fare schemes.

 

[RPI]

Penalty Fares are a useful tool but as others have said, some TOC'S just dish them out like candy to actual fare evaders, an old manager many years back told me "if someone actually deserves a PF then they should be MG11'd", though when the PF is increased to £100 (£50) it at least makes it more of a deterrent, particularly as under the new rules the PF will be a surcharge on top of the Anytime single. Chatting to a manager the other day it seems though that enforcement of non payment will have to go through civil courts.