this is why it just isn't worth fare dodging!

[RPI]

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co....kipping-2-10/story-22905819-detail/story.html oh dear!

Court orders Exeter man must pay £600 for skipping £2.10 rail fare

AN Exeter man who cheekily told ticket inspectors he had better things to do than pay his £2.10 rail fare has been hit with fines and court costs totalling £600.

Alfie Stray, 20, of Guinness Lane, Exwick, was caught without a ticket at Polsloe Bridge on June 4.

When confronted by an inspector he said he had the means to pay the fare but “had better things to do with his money” Exeter Magistrates Court was told.

Stray failed to respond to letters from First Great Western and did not appear in court when summonsed to do so.

In his absence Stray was found guilty of fare evasion, fined £400, ordered to pay prosecution costs of £160 and a victim surcharge of £40.

He was one of 11 fare dodgers fined £400 or more at the court on Wednesday (sept 10).

Among them was Alex Wintle, 21, of Taunton Road, Bridgwater, who was also found guilty of altering a rail pass issued by HMP Exeter so he could use it the day after it was issued and Goncalo Correira, of Byron Way, Northolt, who attempted to avoid a fare of £118 from Paddington to Exeter then gave a false name and address to inspectors.

​

 

[andrewkeith5]

What a foolish man - not paying the fare is bad enough, but then not even bothering to respond to letters, summons or turn up in court just shows a complete disregard for authority. This is more a reason why you should always respond to the letters you are sent, especially the ones from a court.

I don't normally respond or get involved in this sort of story - in most cases I try not take sides, but I find it incredible that someone can act in such an ignorant manner. He deserves what he gets!

 

[Clip]

Silly man just thinking it will all go away.

 

[Flamingo]

Good result for the West Revenue team

 

[Class377]

Slightly off-topic, but I did see a poster which was displayed at numerous stations on the Liverpool Street-Southend route, displaying the revenue protection statistics for a recent month (might have been August?)

Something along the lines of 3,600 PFs and just over 400 successful prosecutions. So over 10 prosecutions and 100 penalty fares a day, each one in the hundreds of pounds. I'm sure there are many fare dodgers but it does seem the odds are in favour of you getting caught out!

 

[Hassocks5489]

I was digging through old BR Sales Circulars (predecessors of the Newsrail Express) at the National Archives a while ago. Some of those, seemingly on a random basis, reported people who had fare-dodged, the value of the fare dodged and the fine, among other stuff. These were late-1980s Circulars, so the fares were generally about £1 and the fines were in the hundreds...

 

[TheEdge]

Something along the lines of 3,600 PFs and just over 400 successful prosecutions. So over 10 prosecutions and 100 penalty fares a day, each one in the hundreds of pounds. I'm sure there are many fare dodgers but it does seem the odds are in favour of you getting caught out!

Well, lets apply some pub maths.

3.6m people through Southend Victoria in 2012/2013, thats 300,000 a month. 400 prosecutions is 0.13% of all travelers in a month. A GA report from 2013(*) has ticketless travel at 3.7%. 3.7% of 300,000 is 11,100 people. So really the odds are not in favour of getting caught.

Yes, I know there are some massive assumptions and poor data handling going on but it gets the point across and also I claim the pub maths rules apply.

*http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2013/07/greater-anglia-cuts-fare-evasion-by-half/

 

[racyrich]

Sentenced in his absence. So he still hasn't paid. I think there are a few more instalments to come in that story.

 

[Feathers44]

Yes, I'd b interested to know where it goes from here.

I always panic slightly when I read these sorts of stories. I have to remind myself that since I always pay my way it really shouldn't happen to me.

 

[Llanigraham]

I suspect he will be sent the details of the fine, with the time to pay it by and if/when he doesn't an arrest warrant will be issued, so he could also get a Contempt charge as well.

 

[Geronimo]

Well, lets apply some pub maths.

3.6m people through Southend Victoria in 2012/2013, thats 300,000 a month. 400 prosecutions is 0.13% of all travelers in a month. A GA report from 2013(*) has ticketless travel at 3.7%. 3.7% of 300,000 is 11,100 people. So really the odds are not in favour of getting caught.

Yes, I know there are some massive assumptions and poor data handling going on but it gets the point across and also I claim the pub maths rules apply.

*http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2013/07/greater-anglia-cuts-fare-evasion-by-half/

Thanks for the link.

My understanding from similar studies/reports is that the 3.7% reflects the actual percentage of ticket checked and for instance doesn't include unknown unknowns (forged tickets, reuse of returns, etc ...). I might be wrong, but real fare evasion is likely a bit higher than measured fare evasion.

This being said, your calculation looks right. A factor 3 (including PFs) discrepancy is not that bad in the context. And perhaps another large chunk of the discrepancy is taken by out-of-court settlements?
In addition, that 3.7% is an average on their entire network. It is likely that fare evasion is more prevalent in barrier-free stations.
The numbers seem pretty consistent to me.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Well, lets apply some pub maths.

3.6m people through Southend Victoria in 2012/2013, . . . .

If I'm reading your assessment correctly, then you also have to add the factor which distinguishes 'journeys' from 'passengers'.

"400 prosecutions is 0.13% of all travelers in a month" will include a significant proportion of people who travel regularly and pay rarely. Just one such person could undertake 500 unpaid journeys p.a. Many do account for regular unpaid journeys and when prosecuted, will be counted as one prosecution, irregardless of how many of these journeys have their evidence brought forward to the court.

Perhaps any disparity in the data is not so great?

 

[Class377]

If I'm reading your assessment correctly, then you also have to add the factor which distinguishes 'journeys' from 'passengers'.

"400 prosecutions is 0.13% of all travelers in a month" will include a significant proportion of people who travel regularly and pay rarely. Just one such person could undertake 500 unpaid journeys p.a. Many do account for regular unpaid journeys and when prosecuted, will be counted as one prosecution, irregardless of how many of these journeys have their evidence brought forward to the court.

Perhaps any disparity in the data is not so great?

I was going to make this point - a fare dodger is only realistically going to be prosecuted once (I would have thought?) but will travel merrily and as frequently as they want until they're caught. So the 4,000 "punishments" (including penalty fares) out of 11,000 ticketless journeys works out at just under 1 in 3 - I know statistics isn't so simple but that means there's a chance of getting "caught" at least once in three journeys, so if a dodger does make several trips the odds do end up against them I'd have thought?

As Geronimo also states, this doesn't include out of court settlements. I'd have thought this would be at least in a similar ballpark to the number of prosecutions?

 

[tony6499]

I wonder if he will turn up on here asking for advice ?

 

[455driver]

I wonder if he will turn up on here asking for advice ?

And wont have received any letters etc, should I make a statutory declaration to reset the clock etc etc.

 

[DownSouth]

I was going to make this point - a fare dodger is only realistically going to be prosecuted once (I would have thought?) but will travel merrily and as frequently as they want until they're caught. So the 4,000 "punishments" (including penalty fares) out of 11,000 ticketless journeys works out at just under 1 in 3 - I know statistics isn't so simple but that means there's a chance of getting "caught" at least once in three journeys, so if a dodger does make several trips the odds do end up against them I'd have thought?

That's just over ⅓ of all known ticketless travel getting penalised.

What about all the other ticketless travel which is not known to the powers that be?

 

[Jonny]

That's just over ⅓ of all known ticketless travel getting penalised.

What about all the other ticketless travel which is not known to the powers that be?

I think that will have been factored into the estimates in the first place - there are ways other than ticket sales to estimate useage. That's how they work out how to allocate resources.

 

[jon0844]

Those out of court settlements, which are now a significant number, must be a problem for train companies. How do they count them or report in their posters and news releases?

The £80+ fee might be a bit of a deterrent (depending how long someone got away with it before being caught) but when word gets around that there's a near certainty that you'll not go to court and therefore not get the criminal record (which always seems to be the real concern offenders have) then it suddenly seems like less of a problem.

 

[455driver]

But there is no guarantee that the £80 admin charge will be offered, is it worth the risk if a criminal record could affect your future prospects?

 

[jon0844]

I think there is a very high chance you will. At least with certain TOCs. That makes me wonder if there will be a policy change now FCC is GTR. Does Govia do a lot of out of court settlements as a matter of course?

While it will be mostly the same people, there could be a change because of new management.

To be honest, a settlement is FAR better for the TOC financially, but you do lose the deterrent factor.

 

[Abpj17]

The new Thameslink connections publication includes their targets for ticketless travel - to reduce to no more than 2.5% (no idea how they are working that out!)

 

[Merseysider]

The new Thameslink connections publication includes their targets for ticketless travel - to reduce to no more than 2.5% (no idea how they are working that out!)

Well if one in every 40 passengers is fare dodging, I'd consider that pretty high! That'd be 2-3 passengers per carriage.

 

[jon0844]

I guess nobody wants to truly admit to how big a problem there is. Sometimes it suits the industry to suggest it loses a fortune in revenue from fare evasion, but at other times it doesn't suit to admit this (or be asked why more effort isn't made to counter it).

It's little different to drink driving. Even though random breath testing isn't allowed, the police will still do stings at certain times of the year (presumably pulling people with feeble excuses). In the last few of these, the police have proudly published just how many people were caught - presumably as a 'don't think about doing it' warning. They often show that 1 in 10 were over the limit.

If that means 10% of cars on the road are over the limit at certain times, it's horrifying. And makes me wonder why they aren't out doing checks more often. I mean, by them not being out actively seeking them does it mean they don't exist?

 

[island]

And wont have received any letters etc, should I make a statutory declaration to reset the clock etc etc.

Precisely what I was about to say!

 

[Abpj17]

Well if one in every 40 passengers is fare dodging, I'd consider that pretty high! That'd be 2-3 passengers per carriage.

If that includes wrong tickets (adult as child, without railcard, short start/stop stations, off-peak used in peak) then that's possibly right tho!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I guess nobody wants to truly admit to how big a problem there is. Sometimes it suits the industry to suggest it loses a fortune in revenue from fare evasion, but at other times it doesn't suit to admit this (or be asked why more effort isn't made to counter it).

It's great for TOCs to suggest they lose a fortune at fares review time- "that fare dodger is making your ticket more expensive, not us!"- but the real problem is that they're not incentivised to stamp it out. Taking steps to assist the "forgetful" in buying a ticket, like having staffed ticket offices or barriers (human or mechanical), costs money. And any additional revenue they make quite often ends up going back to the Government anyway.

If TOCs were allowed to keep the extra money they make, you might see more of a concerted effort to clamp down on ticketless travel. That was certainly what happened when TfL took over the Silverlink Metro lines in North London, taking a situation where most people didn't pay and making it that most people now do pay.

 

[455driver]

It's little different to drink driving. Even though random breath testing isn't allowed, the police will still do stings at certain times of the year (presumably pulling people with feeble excuses). In the last few of these, the police have proudly published just how many people were caught - presumably as a 'don't think about doing it' warning. They often show that 1 in 10 were over the limit.

Oh random tests are allowed, at least the 3 times I have been stopped going to or from work at stupid oclock in the morning. The normal routine is to follow me for a mile or two, pull me over and then use those well rehearsed words "nothing to worry about Sir, just a routine vehicle check have you been drinking". That is it almost word for word!

 

[jon0844]

Never had that. Always a feeble excuse along the lines of not being sure I was wearing a seat belt, that the number plate looked wrong, or similar. They knew I didn't believe them, but I don't care. Random checks should be done more often.

 

[455driver]

Never had that. Always a feeble excuse along the lines of not being sure I was wearing a seat belt, that the number plate looked wrong, or similar. They knew I didn't believe them, but I don't care. Random checks should be done more often.

Yes I quite agree, its just the fact they carry on with this 'we wont stop you without good reason' rubbish that pees me off.

 

[najaB]

Yes I quite agree, its just the fact they carry on with this 'we wont stop you without good reason' rubbish that pees me off.

The issue with random checks is ensuring that they are provably random. It is very easy for them to (inadvertently or not) start to be based on profiling.