Northern recovers over £2m from fare-evaders in 12 months

[Haywain]

Report from Rail Business Daily:

Northern recovers over £2m from fare-evaders in 12 months
Northern has said that it has managed to recover more than £2 million from fare-dodgers in the past year.
The money will go back into the railway, and make sure that the taxpayer is not subsidising people who try not to pay for journeys.
There were 90,000 reported instances of attempted fare evasion in 2021-22, of which 53,000 were issued with a formal penalty fare.
Northern successfully prosecuted more than 11,000 of the worst offenders and, in total, was able to recover £2,077,559.
The data has been released by Northern’s Debt Recovery and Prosecution Unit.
Mark Powles, customer and commercial director at Northern, said: “Customers have a duty to buy a ticket for travel before they board a train – and the overwhelming majority of them do so via our app, website, ticket offices or one of more than 600 ticket machines across the network.
“Unfortunately, a small number of people deliberately try to ‘fare evade’ and we have a responsibility to pursue those so that fare paying passengers – and taxpayers at large – are not subsidising the cost of travel for those who do not pay their fare.
“The money recovered can now be reinvested in making the rail network better for all our customers – including improvements to trains, stations and other passenger facilities.”
Northern says it has made it easy for customers to buy tickets, with digital tickets available for all journeys. It adds it is investing in the largest network of ticket infrastructure of any train operator in the country.
Northern operates nearly 2,000 services a day to more than 500 stations across the North of England.
Fare evaders are prosecuted under the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and the Railway Byelaws made pursuant to the Transport Act 2000.

 

[yorkie]

It's interesting that Northern are accusing people who are issued with penalty fares as fare evaders; other companies give a different view:

https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/timetables/Chiltern%20Penalty%20Fares%20v2_0.pdf

A penalty fare is not to be confused with fare evasion. Fare evasion is a completely different matter...

There is a worrying lack of consistency between different train companies who operate Penalty Fare schemes.

It sounds like 11,000 people were actually accused of fare evasion, not the 90,000 Northern claim.

I really wouldn't trust Northern to be accurate in their statements anyway; they get so many things wrong.

 

[Haywain]

I really wouldn't trust Northern to be accurate in their statements anyway; they get so many things wrong.

Press releases are frequently inaccurate (or economical with the truth?). It would be interesting to know whether the £2 million includes penalty fares - if it does, they account for more than half of the money 'recovered'.

It sounds like 11,000 people were actually accused of fare evasion, not the 90,000 Northern claim.

I would say that 37,000 were accused, and 11,000 were convicted, based on the figures given.

 

[yorkie]

Press releases are frequently inaccurate (or economical with the truth?).

yes that's very true.

It would be interesting to know whether the £2 million includes penalty fares - if it does, they account for more than half of the money 'recovered'.

I would say that 37,000 were accused, and 11,000 were convicted, based on the figures given.

yes it could be that the 90,000 total is for people found without a ticket in circumstances where ticket offices were open etc and of those 53k were issued PFs (i.e. treated as making a mistake such as rushing for the train), 37k may have been accused of fare evasion and 11k prosecuted. Of the 26k accused but not prosecuted, some of these cases may have been dropped and/or some of these cases may have been settled out of court, and possibly other outcomes I've not considered.

It's all very wooly but I suspect the aim is to try to make out that huge numbers of people are deliberately avoiding payment and being caught and punished for doing so, rather than give an accurate representation of the true outcomes.

 

[43066]

It's interesting that Northern are accusing people who are issued with penalty fares as fare evaders; other companies give a different view:

https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/timetables/Chiltern%20Penalty%20Fares%20v2_0.pdf

But I suppose it’s true to say that if you’ve boarded a train without a correct ticket, with the intention to avoid paying the correct fare, you are by definition a fare evader, whether that is dealt with by way of penalty fare or otherwise.

The Chiltern statement unhelpfully muddies the waters and it’s important for people to remember that there is no right to expect to be dealt with by way of penalty fare.

 

[lachlan]

But I suppose it’s true to say that if you’ve boarded a train without a correct ticket with the intention to avoid paying the correct fare, you are by definition a fare evader, whether that is dealt with by way of penalty fare or otherwise.

The Chiltern statement unhelpfully muddies the waters and it’s important for people to remember that there is no right to expect to be dealt with by way of penalty fare.

But many of those issued with a penalty fare may have boarded the wrong train, not had time to purchase a ticket, or purchased the wrong ticket. All of these could be honest mistakes where the passenger had no intention to avoid paying their fare.

 

[62484GlenLyon]

But many of those issued with a penalty fare may have boarded the wrong train, not had time to purchase a ticket, or purchased the wrong ticket. All of these could be honest mistakes where the passenger had no intention to avoid paying their fare.

But what frequently runs through many of the cases on this forum is these reasons are no defence, however honourable and upstanding a citizen one is.

 

[Starmill]

The total sounds to me like it does include Penalty Fares paid in addition to the other means of clawing back costs. But who knows.

But what frequently runs through many of the cases on this forum is these reasons are no defence, however honourable and upstanding a citizen one is.

They are a defence though. That's the entire point! Someone clearly couldn't be successfully prosecuted for attempting to avoid paying the correct fare if they bought a ticket before boarding, accidentally boarded a train departing very close to the departure time of the one they had booked a ticket for, and then when it was pointed out they were on the wrong train they paid for a new ticket. They could however be convicted of one of the byelaw offences.

They're merely not defences which are available against the charge of a penalty fare, subject to the new Penalty Fares appeals process that is, or an offence under the railway byelaws.

 

[43066]

But many of those issued with a penalty fare may have boarded the wrong train, not had time to purchase a ticket, or purchased the wrong ticket. All of these could be honest mistakes where the passenger had no intention to avoid paying their fare.

If you’re found on a train without a valid ticket a prima facie offence* has been committed and it is open to the TOC to prosecute you and for you to then raise a defence in court.

The point is that the presence of a penalty fare scheme doesn’t *entitle* you to be dealt with that way. Indeed it’s apparent from this forum that penalty fares are often issued for behaviour which could be prosecuted as fare evasion, so it isn’t particularly helpful to distinguish between fare evasion and penalty fares in the way that Chiltern document does. In fact the way it’s written is (IMO) dangerously misleading. Perhaps what they mean to say is that a penalty fare isn’t the same as a conviction for fare evasion, which of course it isn’t, but that’s a very different point.


*As an aside, I think some ticketing offences are strict liability, so no intent needs to be demonstrated?

 

[swt_passenger]

…Indeed it’s apparent from this forum that penalty fares are often issued for behaviour which could be prosecuted as fare evasion, so it isn’t particularly helpful to distinguish between fare evasion and penalty fares in the way that Chiltern document does. In fact the way it’s written is (IMO) dangerously misleading. Perhaps what they mean to say is that a penalty fare isn’t the same as a conviction for fare evasion, which of course it isn’t, but that’s a very different point.

Isn’t it also the case that Chiltern’s site is the only one that reads that way? It’s the only one that ever seems to get linked to, perhaps every other TOC sees it differently?

 

[43066]

They are a defence though. That's the entire point! Someone clearly couldn't be successfully prosecuted for attempting to avoid paying the correct fare if they bought a ticket before boarding, accidentally boarded a train departing very close to the departure time of the one they had booked a ticket for, and then when it was pointed out they were on the wrong train they paid for a new ticket. They could however be convicted of one of the byelaw offences.

However, irrespective of any possible defence, they could be prosecuted rather than issued with a penalty fare. *That* is the point.

Isn’t it also the case that Chiltern’s site is the only one that reads that way? It’s the only one that ever seems to get linked to, perhaps every other TOC sees it differently?

It describes itself as a guide but strikes me as a rather misleading document. I notice it also says that “we will not hesitate to use the full weight of the law against opportunists and fare evaders”, so clearly prosecution is well and truly being left on the table as an option!

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the issue is that Penalty Fares started as a way of dealing with people who had made honest mistakes or at least could be given the benefit of the doubt. For people who did something which blatant or for which no benefit of the doubt could be offered then prosecution was the option available. I seem to recall that this was the approach laid down by the SRA when they were responsible for looking after such things. Since it got subsumed into the DfT there has been no real steer as to what PFs are actually for. Indeed I recall that the SRA had quite a lengthy document going into some detail what PFs were for, how they were to be used, when they weren't to be used and what you had to do to ensure you had a compliant scheme. Though that could be my memory playing tricks!

I think however the reality is that the modern day PF schemes used by the majority of TOCs are being used to deal with anyone who has a ticketing irregularity whether that is something which is just an honest mistake or whether that is someone who could quite correctly be prosecuted for fare evasion (either Byelaw or RoRA). Therefore the distinction between PFs being for honest mistakes and prosecutions for people who are actual fare evaders has broken down meaning in reality one day one passenger might get a PF the next day, having done exactly the same thing, another might get prosecuted. Certainly in the public consciousness people see Penalty Fares as being the way that fare evasion is dealt with. See the number of people who post here saying "I wasn't given the opportunity to pay a penalty fare that's sure not right?" or similar.

What really needs to happen, and perhaps GBR might be willing get to grips with as certainly the DfT never cared to, is a root and branch review of how exactly we deal with fare evasion and honest mistakes. Because what we currently have is a system which I don't really think can be described as fit for purpose precisely because we sat here arguing whether or not PFs are for fare evasion or not! Quite apart from whether or not the Byelaws which do not require intent are fit for purpose, whether the change that brought that in was even legal (as I recall there is a question mark on that) and whether or not fare evasion should be a criminal matter dealt with by courts or whether a beefed up PF scheme is actually going to be better for everyone (with the Fraud Act or similar still available to deal with people who go around making fake tickets and perhaps a specific carve out for prolific offenders like that solicitor that got found out a few years ago).

 

[pdeaves]

As far as the public at large who might read the press release is concerned, a penalty fare is a Bad Thing and they are encouraged to get a ticket. It does not set out anything about criminal records and whatnot and the press release has no need to make that distinction.

 

[robbeech]

I think however the reality is that the modern day PF schemes used by the majority of TOCs are being used to deal with anyone who has a ticketing irregularity whether that is something which is just an honest mistake or whether that is someone who could quite correctly be prosecuted for fare evasion (either Byelaw or RoRA).

They are also, on a comparatively small but not insignificant number of occasions used when the passenger has done absolutely nothing wrong as a “guilty until proven innocent” tactic. For example, Northern will often issue a PF for no ticket held when there was no opportunity to purchase one, their attitude being, we are issuing it anyway and you can appeal. Of course it’s not a lawful way for them to behave but it is how they’re taught to behave.

We do need to remember that out of the people accused but not convicted there will be people who absolute did evade the fare but settled out of court as others have said, or if it went to court it may be that they didn’t have enough evidence. There will of course be innocent people who have been fobbed off at every single step of the way and ended up paying hundreds of pounds but this number will be very small indeed.

 

[Starmill]

I think that Ainsworth has it. The way Penalty Fares schemes are used today is just a convenient way to balance losses from fare evasion. If the Penalty Fare is typically double the normal fare, the company only needs to detect half of the cases to break even. Of course there's the cost of actually undertaking the revenue protection exercises in the first place, so that will add slightly to the ratio. They're not really in place to deter fare evasion, resources aren't targeted at making the largest numbers of people pay the correct fares; they're instead targeted at where they'll be able to raise the most money relative to the expense of the exercise.

This is a very different vision from what was envisaged when Penalty Fares started on BR at £10, which was that they would be used as a deterrent to everyone to boarding the train without a ticket on routes where BR had removed the conductors or travelling ticket inspectors. The primary aim now isn't that people pay their correct fares, it's just to earn as much money as possible.

 

[yorkie]

But I suppose it’s true to say that if you’ve boarded a train without a correct ticket, with the intention to avoid paying the correct fare, you are by definition a fare evader, whether that is dealt with by way of penalty fare or otherwise.

The view of train companies such as Chiltern is that if someone has been found acting in this manner, they should not be issued a Penalty Fare. Perhaps Northern take a different view; it's unclear.

But many of those issued with a penalty fare may have boarded the wrong train, not had time to purchase a ticket, or purchased the wrong ticket. All of these could be honest mistakes where the passenger had no intention to avoid paying their fare.

Indeed a Penalty Fare is applicable for purchasing the wrong ticket under certain circumstances, though in some circumstances the wrong ticket should be excessed. I've known Penalty Fares be issued in situations where an excess fare should have been issued, or occasionally even when the original ticket was actually valid.

But what frequently runs through many of the cases on this forum is these reasons are no defence, however honourable and upstanding a citizen one is.

It depends on the exact circumstances.

Isn’t it also the case that Chiltern’s site is the only one that reads that way? It’s the only one that ever seems to get linked to, perhaps every other TOC sees it differently?

That isn't the case, no. Chiltern's wording is very clear; I've not read every single penalty fare TOC's policy but that one sticks in my mind as having clear and concise language which avoids all doubt.

For example GTR state:

Train Penalty Fares | Penalties on a Train | Thameslink

If you can’t produce a valid ticket for your full journey, you may be charged a Penalty Fare. Learn the rules and see what a Penalty Fare might cost you.

www.thameslinkrailway.com

A penalty fare is a fare charged at a higher rate than the normal price because a passenger didn't follow the normal rules for buying a ticket. It is not a fine.

Greater Anglia state:

Penalty Fares

Don't pay a Penalty Fare. Buy the correct ticket before you travel. Please make sure you buy a valid ticket for your entire journey before you travel. Otherwise, you could be charged extra.

www.greateranglia.co.uk

If you board a train without a valid ticket, then you may
have to pay a Penalty Fare. If it is shown that your
intention was to avoid your fare, then you are breaking the
criminal law and you may be liable to prosecution.

Privatisation has caused a lot of muddying of the waters and blurring of the lines, and the DfT have been very poor at showing leadership compared to the vastly superior Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) who came before them.

@ainsworth74 hits the nail on the head; some TOCs no longer appear to be adhering to the spirit and intention of the Penalty Fares scheme as originally implemented.

 

[Skymonster]

Evade - defn: escape or avoid (someone or something), especially by guile or trickery.

The Oxford dictionary definition of evade / evasion clearly puts the emphasis on deliberate acts / malfeasance rather than innocent mistakes. Labelling those who have actually been issued with Penalty Fares as evaders is therefore a bit disingenuous.

If you board a train without a valid ticket, then you may
have to pay a Penalty Fare. If it is shown that your
intention was to avoid your fare, then you are breaking the
criminal law and you may be liable to prosecution.

The tricky bit of course is differentiating the genuine mistakes from the deliberate acts. Nevertheless this statement appears to put the onus on the railway to prove evasion as opposed to error / omission.

 

[js1000]

It's interesting that Northern are accusing people who are issued with penalty fares as fare evaders; other companies give a different view:

https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/timetables/Chiltern%20Penalty%20Fares%20v2_0.pdf

There is a worrying lack of consistency between different train companies who operate Penalty Fare schemes.

It sounds like 11,000 people were actually accused of fare evasion, not the 90,000 Northern claim.

I really wouldn't trust Northern to be accurate in their statements anyway; they get so many things wrong.

I remember once arriving at my destination and trying to buy a weekly season ticket (as fare evaders would naturally do) due to the ticket machine at the departure station not accepting season ticket purchases. I was pulled aside to talk to a Northern revenue ticket goon who said I need to pay a £20 penalty fare. I just laughed and ended up walking off and buying my season ticket from the polite and respectable Virgin Trains staff from their ticket office on the concourse. This was when Northern first introduced penalty fares and I think they were too trigger happy with them at the time.

 

[38Cto15E]

When I was at Preston a few weeks ago the Northern revenue protection team were out on the slope en masse, I think they had just come from their shift at Trilogy nightclub in Blackpool.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I remember once arriving at my destination and trying to buy a weekly season ticket (as fare evaders would naturally do) due to the ticket machine at the departure station not accepting season ticket purchases. I was pulled aside to talk to a Northern revenue ticket goon who said I need to pay a £20 penalty fare. I just laughed and ended up walking off and buying my season ticket from the polite and respectable Virgin Trains staff from their ticket office on the concourse. This was when Northern first introduced penalty fares and I think they were too trigger happy with them at the time.

In a PF area you are supposed to buy a single and "cash it in" against a season. Though the railway actually being able to do this is debatable at times.

 

[ainsworth74]

In a PF area you are supposed to buy a single and "cash it in" against a season. Though the railway actually being able to do this is debatable at times.

Are you? I could be missing a trick but the NRCoT doesn't mention that and neither do the Penalty Fare regulations that I can see.

 

[Starmill]

In a PF area you are supposed to buy a single and "cash it in" against a season. Though the railway actually being able to do this is debatable at times.

As hinted by @ainsworth74 it sounds like you're remembering a previous draft of NRCoT. This is no longer in writing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As hinted by @ainsworth74 it sounds like you're remembering a previous draft of NRCoT. This is no longer in writing.

Ah, thanks.

 

[Wallsendmag]

In a PF area you are supposed to buy a single and "cash it in" against a season. Though the railway actually being able to do this is debatable at times.

That's for monthlys not weeklys and applies everywhere.