Scotrail Policy on Buy Before You Board

[GusB]

My local route is Inverness to Aberdeen, and my journeys usually originate in Elgin and end at either Aberdeen or Nairn (and return). Hitherto, I've been a relatively infrequent traveller, but due to recent family events, they're likely to become a bit more frequent.

Historically, I've always tried to buy a ticket at the station before I begin my journey, but I've never had an issue with boarding a train and purchasing a ticket from the guard. It's only really since joining this forum that I've become aware of byelaws and the fact that I've probably missed my first point of purchase on several occasions! I don't think I've ever seen any problems reported in the Disputes and Prosecutions section pertaining to ScotRail.

On the previous occasion that I travelled to Nairn from Elgin, I bought from the ticket office. My ticket was checked shortly after the train departed and all was well. When he reached the next table, the guard happily sold tickets from the same station where I boarded. On the return journey I was unable to buy from the office, which was closed, but there was a TVM which refused to accept my card in its normal chip'n'pin mode - it did however take payment from my phone using Google Pay.

Yesterday, I arrived at the station in Elgin to find that the ticket office had closed "due to staff shortage". The TVM was there, and I used it to pay for my ticket with cash. What I'd like to know is, had I boarded the train without a ticket, would the guard have been happy to sell me one, as I'd seen on previous occasions, or would they have enforced the "buy before you board" policy?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The situation within Scotland is significantly different to that within England and Wales. This is because, whilst the Railway Byelaws apply in the same way they do in England and Wales, private prosecutions in Scotland are very rare indeed - because they require obtaining a bill for criminal letters from the High Court of Justiciary individually for each prosecution! Only 2 private prosecutions have occurred in Scotland since 1900.

In this context, as well as in the context of that no Penalty Fares Scheme exists on Scotrail, the "Buy Before You Board" system has perhaps significantly less weight than it might do in England and Wales. If you fail to take an opportunity to buy a ticket before boarding (e.g. a TVM or ticket office) then the worst that can happen in Scotland is that you have to pay the Anytime (Day) Single fare without a Railcard discount - and this is merely because the train company is entitled to do so under the terms of the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT).

So to find out whether the train company is entitled to charge the undiscounted Anytime fare under the NRCoT we must merely make reference to the relevant Conditions - 6 and 9.

Specifically in your example, if you wanted to use a payment method that the TVM didn't offer (e.g. card, cash, Rail Travel Vouchers) then you would be entitled to buy on board without having to pay the Anytime (Day) Single as a 'penalty', i.e. if the time of the train allowed it, you could buy an Off-Peak or Super Off-Peak (Day) Single or Return.

 

[GusB]

Thanks for your response, and apologies for the delay in mine.

I suppose I was just thinking about the inconsistent state of affairs we have in the UK. It's little wonder that people get confused and end up falling foul of The Rules in one part of the country when they're used to Different Rules in another. Or rather, they're enforced differently!

 

[Sirius]

In my experience, many years ago when I studied in Glasgow, it was entirely common practice that everyone just got on the train and paid for off-peak returns without any issue.

Twitter has a few users complaining about this recently, indicating to me that while the rules haven't changed (it's always been written that you should buy before you board except at an unmanned station) the application of them has.

It was an issue around 2005 maybe, and I overheard ticket examiners discussing that it was an issue with commission - those in stations didn't get it but those on trains did(?) therefore Scotrail presumably ran by First were trying to change passenger behaviour. Then after a few months it went back to 'normal'.

 

[garethep]

Certainly at Glasgow stations there is a ticket office "inside" the barriers to allow tickets to be purchased at the destination.....the queue is normally fairly substantial and I always assumed that this was used as sufficient deterrent to deal with anyone who had a genuine opportunity to purchase earlier....it's not uncommon for guards on busy trains just to ask for anyone who "needs a ticket" rather than carrying out a full check. No idea on official policy but it all seems very relaxed on any service where the exit is covered by barriers.

 

[Gareth Marston]

ScotRails policy seems more aimed at not having trains full of people expecting the one conductor to come round and having big queues at stations with excess fares windows platform side i.e its doing them and the passenger a favour. A lot of whats going on in England and Wales is in response to endemic fare evasion or buy when challenged custom - I don't know for certain but Scotland doesn't seem to have those problems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

ScotRails policy seems more aimed at not having trains full of people expecting the one conductor to come round and having big queues at stations with excess fares windows platform side i.e its doing them and the passenger a favour. A lot of whats going on in England and Wales is in response to endemic fare evasion or buy when challenged custom - I don't know for certain but Scotland doesn't seem to have those problems.

I'm sure Scotland does have fare-dodging, it's just that the legal framework doesn't allow the railway to do an awful lot about it, so it has to use other methods (encouraging purchase before travel, barriers etc).

TBH, given how private prosecutions get abused in England (including by some TOCs) I would be quite happy for the Scottish situation to apply to England, i.e. basically not allowing them.

 

[Haywain]

TBH, given how private prosecutions get abused in England (including by some TOCs) I would be quite happy for the Scottish situation to apply to England, i.e. basically not allowing them.

Private prosecutions are allowed in Scotland, but the process makes it much more difficult than in England. Applying the same system south of the border would affect not only railway companies but many others, such as the RSPCA who bring prosecutions for animal cruelty. Do you have any evidence that private prosecutions are abused?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Private prosecutions are allowed in Scotland, but the process makes it much more difficult than in England. Applying the same system south of the border would affect not only railway companies but many others, such as the RSPCA who bring prosecutions for animal cruelty. Do you have any evidence that private prosecutions are abused?

I think there is enough evidence in this forum that they are by the railway, yes. In essence they are used as a means of blackmail (extracting excessive settlements from people as a means of creating a barely regulated "Penalty Fake" system). Yes, you, Northern.

As I've said many times before, fare evasion needs decriminalising, replacing with a higher Penalty Fare with a strong, independent appeals body. It's similar to failure to pay for (statutory) parking in concept, and needs a similar model (and penalty magnitude) around it.

Out of interest, do the RSPCA accept such settlements? I assume and hope not.

 

[Haywain]

Out of interest, do the RSPCA accept such settlements? I assume and hope not.

I doubt if the RSPCA do but other authorities who bring prosecutions do, such as HMRC.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Private prosecutions are allowed in Scotland, but the process makes it much more difficult than in England. Applying the same system south of the border would affect not only railway companies but many others, such as the RSPCA who bring prosecutions for animal cruelty. Do you have any evidence that private prosecutions are abused?

I think there have been several examples of, shall we say, severely "unmeritorious" prosecutions by TOCs in recent years. Prosecuting for failing to obtain a zero-fare overdistance excess (ATW), prosecution because the TM couldn't change-of-route excess the ticket due to their system preventing them from doing so (XC), prosecution for 'not being on a permitted route' when the passenger actually was (albeit in a non-obvious manner) (XC). I'm sure there are many other examples in the Disputes & Prosecutions subforum.

I think the problem is two-fold: firstly that prosecution investigations are often outsourced and the merit of a prosecution is often seriously considered when the TOC's solicitor/barrister reads through the case just before the hearing; secondly, that there are financial and other improper motiviation for a TOC to prosecute, rather than the public interest, and the interests of justice, which should both be the deciding factors for prosecutions (as opposed to civil cases).

Now whilst it is clear that many posters there are 'guity as charged', there are a number who decide to plead guilty, or make out of Court settlements, simply because it is cheaper and/or less risky and/or lees inconvenient to do this than to actually fight the matter. There are also many cases where the OP is actually entirely in the right (e.g. was given permission to board without a ticket) but, being unable to prove this, effectively has no choice but to plead guilty or settle for something they are not guilty of.

It is cases like those which I've mentioned above which are the perfect example of why the current private prosecution model is very, very wrong and broken. Here are some of the changes I would make:

1) Add an amendment to the Bribery Act 2010, making it a criminal offence for any train company to offer or accept a financial out of Court settlement. Given the massive power differential between the TOC and the passenger, this system is rife for abuse. The TOCs would have to put their money where their mouth is, effectively, and only prosecute those cases which they are confident of winning.

2) Remove the ability for TOCs to send out their own Court summons with the SJP procedure. They should have to lay an information before the Court, and only if the Court is satisfied that it is in the public interest, and in the interests of justice, for the case to proceed should a summons be issued. This would mean that unmeritorious cases (e.g. unobtained zero-fare excesses) would hopefully just not come to the stage of a summons.

Really, I would find the Scotland system the best option - and I would accept proper enforcement (i.e. suing at County Court where necessary) of Penalty Fares (with both sides, TOC and passenger, having to comply with the rules fully) as 'compensation' for the loss of private prosecutions. But I realise that private prosecutions are sadly such an established legal convention here in England and Wales that abolishing it would be very difficult and unlikely to occur.

I think that, if we must maintain the current system of private prosecutions, at the very least the bar for malicious prosecution should be much lower for private prosecutions, or alternatively there should be a new offence (with dual civil liability) of making an unmeritorious prosecution. This way, unmeritorious prosecutions such as those I mentioned above would leave the TOC itself open to civil and/or criminal liability and make them think more carefully about bringing such ridiculous cases.

 

[Haywain]

Let's be clear, the problem posters on this forum have is with TOCs, but Bletchleyite stated that "private prosecutions get abused in England (including by some TOCs)". I asked for evidence but none is produced other than regarding TOCs. As the system is widely used in England I do not see the actions of TOCs in a limited number of cases as reason to dismantle the private prosecution system completely. I believe that if there is an argument against the use of the available legislation by TOCs, then the argument against should be change the legislation and not the system that is used to enforce the legislation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Let's be clear, the problem posters on this forum have is with TOCs, but Bletchleyite stated that "private prosecutions get abused in England (including by some TOCs)". I asked for evidence but none is produced other than regarding TOCs. As the system is widely used in England I do not see the actions of TOCs in a limited number of cases as reason to dismantle the private prosecution system completely. I believe that if there is an argument against the use of the available legislation by TOCs, then the argument against should be change the legislation and not the system that is used to enforce the legislation.

That is a fair point. I would be happy with the simple decriminalisation of fare evasion specifically (with a national £80 PF, reduced to £40 for prompt payment, increased to £120 for delayed payment or repeated offences (more than one offence in any rolling 12 month period, any further offence restarting the clock each time), in all cases subject to the addition of the walk-up fare which would have been purchased immediately before travel had the passenger done so, including Off Peak, Railcards etc), the introduction of an independent statutory appeals body, and the consequential abolition of both the Byelaw and RoRA offence.

If the PF remained unpaid, it would be pursued through the civil Courts in the conventional manner. A regular fraud charge could be pursued in relevant cases, but this realistically will be few.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Let's be clear, the problem posters on this forum have is with TOCs, but Bletchleyite stated that "private prosecutions get abused in England (including by some TOCs)". I asked for evidence but none is produced other than regarding TOCs. As the system is widely used in England I do not see the actions of TOCs in a limited number of cases as reason to dismantle the private prosecution system completely. I believe that if there is an argument against the use of the available legislation by TOCs, then the argument against should be change the legislation and not the system that is used to enforce the legislation.

There are plenty of other examples of organisations/systems which misuse the private prosecution system. For example, Capita, which manages the TV Licensing system for the BBC, is notorious for 'unmeritorious' prosecutions and engages in practices (when collecting "evidence" for prosecutions) which are extremely underhand.

The RSPCA is also far from having a clean record with its prosecutions and similar actions. Whilst I am sure they do many meritorious prosecutions, there have been plenty of reported cases where they have really taken the proverbial.

Ultimately, unless the system changes so that ordinary people can get the up-front funding and powers to investigate and prosecute others and organisations, I don't see that private prosecutions should continue to exist. They are not the kind of thing which the ordinary man relies on (and would be worse for not having). They are the kind of thing which are a legitimised form of vigilante justice, really. We don't accept vigilantism in other areas, so there's no reason it should be tolerated when it comes to prosecuting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps one thing that would help, as I think was alluded to above, would be to prohibit the negotiation of out of court settlements for private prosecutions, i.e. once the Court papers are submitted the issue MUST go to Court, and to solicit, offer or otherwise deal in a financial settlement to withdraw a case would be considered bribery and therefore subject to criminal charges. They could remain for simple civil financial claims, of course, as these are rather different in scope.

 

[Highlandspring]

I'm sure Scotland does have fare-dodging, it's just that the legal framework doesn't allow the railway to do an awful lot about it, so it has to use other methods (encouraging purchase before travel, barriers etc).

Fare evasion is endemic in some areas of Scotland.

Private prosecutions are allowed in Scotland, but the process makes it much more difficult than in England.

...to the point that there have only been two private prosecutions brought since 1900. The last attempt to secure permission (a ‘Bill of Criminal Letters’) to persue a private prosecution was against Harry Clarke, the driver of the bin lorry which crashed in Glasgow city centre in December 2014, and it was thrown out by the Court of Session because the judges considered it risked opening the floodgates for similar cases in future. That was an extremely serious case so the chances of the railway being allowed to prosecute folk for dodging the fare from Crossmyloof to Central is so remote as to be virtually impossible. Scots Law is very, very different from the law in the rest of the UK to an extent that most people (even in Scotland) don’t realise.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Perhaps one thing that would help, as I think was alluded to above, would be to prohibit the negotiation of out of court settlements for private prosecutions, i.e. once the Court papers are submitted the issue MUST go to Court, and to solicit, offer or otherwise deal in a financial settlement to withdraw a case would be considered bribery and therefore subject to criminal charges. They could remain for simple civil financial claims, of course, as these are rather different in scope.

I agree. This would simply require an updating of the definition of 'duty' (as one relevant offence of bribery is accepting a financial or other advantage in exchange for exercising, or not exercising, a duty incumbent upon you). I would make it such that a duty to prosecute arises if the evidence etc. is sufficient to justify issuing a summons.