Why do train companies issue MG11 directly for ticketing mistakes?

[miklcct]

MG11 is intended to be used to prosecute fare evaders, however, as a recent thread shows, a passenger who just purchased a ticket from/to the wrong station is accused of fare evasion and given a MG11 directly instead of a penalty fare, just because the mistake he made is the same of what regular fare evaders does.

Why do train companies issue MG11 directly before the possibility of a genuine mistake is ruled out beyond reasonable doubt? It seems unfair to passengers making ticketing mistakes just because he left Vauxhall instead of another station accidentally on Trainline. For example, if my regular journey is Pokesdown - Bournemouth with my home station at Bournemouth, a mistake caught using this ticket on a fast train when I make irregular journeys from Southampton Airport (which is ungated) will look like the same as well; while if my regular journey is Weymouth - Bournemouth with a mistake caught from a Southampton fast it won't look like a tactic used by fare evaders - however the chance of getting a genuine mistake by a non-fare-evader is the same in both cases.

 

[swt_passenger]

You’ve been here a while now. If you have already worked out a genuinely foolproof way of differentiating between a real mistake and an intentional short fare attempt, I’m sure many people would love to hear about it.

 

[Watershed]

MG11 is intended to be used to prosecute fare evaders, however, as a recent thread shows, a passenger who just purchased a ticket from/to the wrong station is accused of fare evasion and given a MG11 directly instead of a penalty fare, just because the mistake he made is the same of what regular fare evaders does.

Why do train companies issue MG11 directly before the possibility of a genuine mistake is ruled out beyond reasonable doubt? It seems unfair to passengers making ticketing mistakes just because he left Vauxhall instead of another station accidentally on Trainline. For example, if my regular journey is Pokesdown - Bournemouth with my home station at Bournemouth, a mistake caught using this ticket on a fast train when I make irregular journeys from Southampton Airport (which is ungated) will look like the same as well; while if my regular journey is Weymouth - Bournemouth with a mistake caught from a Southampton fast it won't look like a tactic used by fare evaders - however the chance of getting a genuine mistake by a non-fare-evader is the same in both cases.

Why? Because they can. The law is heavily skewed in favour of the TOCs. Passengers don't need to have intent to avoid payment to be committing an offence. TOCs can use the threat of prosecution to extract substantial (and often disproportionate) settlements.

If an MG11 is not filled out when someone is stopped, it makes it harder for the TOC to later prosecute the case. Therefore it is normal, when details are taken with a view to potential prosecution, for an MG11 to be completed.

 

[AlterEgo]

MG11 is intended to be used to prosecute fare evaders, however, as a recent thread shows, a passenger who just purchased a ticket from/to the wrong station is accused of fare evasion and given a MG11 directly instead of a penalty fare, just because the mistake he made is the same of what regular fare evaders does.

Why do train companies issue MG11 directly before the possibility of a genuine mistake is ruled out beyond reasonable doubt? It seems unfair to passengers making ticketing mistakes just because he left Vauxhall instead of another station accidentally on Trainline. For example, if my regular journey is Pokesdown - Bournemouth with my home station at Bournemouth, a mistake caught using this ticket on a fast train when I make irregular journeys from Southampton Airport (which is ungated) will look like the same as well; while if my regular journey is Weymouth - Bournemouth with a mistake caught from a Southampton fast it won't look like a tactic used by fare evaders - however the chance of getting a genuine mistake by a non-fare-evader is the same in both cases.

God bless you for taking that linked example at face value. Please also hand over your wallet to me. I am a wallet inspector.

 

[skyhigh]

Why do train companies issue MG11 directly before the possibility of a genuine mistake is ruled out beyond reasonable doubt?

Please outline how you would do that.

 

[jon0844]

In some cases a PF is offered and refused, because someone only wants to pay the normal price they should have paid, which means MG11 is the only route.

 

[DorkingMain]

"Why do companies issue an MG11 to someone who offers an unlikely combination of excuses for the reason they're doing a common fare evasion tactic?"

 

[Watershed]

In some cases a PF is offered and refused, because someone only wants to pay the normal price they should have paid, which means MG11 is the only route.

It's hardly the only route. They could use the other powers available to them to recover the fare. For example requiring name and address to send a 'bill', if necessary detaining people where they refuse to give their details.

ScotRail seem to manage perfectly fine without the need to resort to prosecutions as soon as there is a disagreement - and so did Virgin Trains. It's simply a commercial decision, that it's easiest and most convenient for the TOC to prosecute (or threaten to do so).

 

[30907]

Issuing an MG11 rather than a PF allows the TOC to investigate further - eg the traveller's purchasing history via a Data Access Request.
Current example: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/letter-requiring-mitigating-circumstances.230844/

 

[Haywain]

ScotRail seem to manage perfectly fine without the need to resort to prosecutions as soon as there is a disagreement

Given the notable differences between English and Scottish law that can hardly be said to be a matter of choice.

 

[swt_passenger]

Issuing an MG11 rather than a PF allows the TOC to investigate further - eg the traveller's purchasing history via a Data Access Request.
Current example: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/letter-requiring-mitigating-circumstances.230844/

I also think people are sometimes wrongly assuming an MG11 is a procedure. It’s simply an agreed format for a witness statement. The witness being the RPI.

It‘s use doesn’t force the TOC to go down any particular process AIUI.

 

[Watershed]

Given the notable differences between English and Scottish law that can hardly be said to be a matter of choice.

Perhaps not. But are ScotRail's rates of ticketless travel and/or fare evasion significantly higher than those of English/Welsh TOCs? How about the rates onboard English TOCs' services that run in Scotland (where they are also barred from prosecuting)? Or the relative cost of revenue protection?

Without detailed data it is difficult to conclude one way or the other, but from anecdotal data, I would say that rates are affected far more by factors such as the presence of (consistently staffed) barriers, and the frequency of staff checking tickets onboard trains. And as such, prosecution doesn't really serve as a deterrent to would-be chancers or evaders. It is just that it is the easiest way for TOCs to extract large sums of money, without being constrained by such nuisances as Penalty Fares Regulations or the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Perhaps not. But are ScotRail's rates of ticketless travel and/or fare evasion significantly higher than those of English/Welsh TOCs? How about the rates onboard English TOCs' services that run in Scotland (where they are also barred from prosecuting)? Or the relative cost of revenue protection?

Without detailed data it is difficult to conclude one way or the other, but from anecdotal data, I would say that rates are affected far more by factors such as the presence of (consistently staffed) barriers, and the frequency of staff checking tickets onboard trains. And as such, prosecution doesn't really serve as a deterrent to would-be chancers or evaders. It is just that it is the easiest way for TOCs to extract large sums of money, without being constrained by such nuisances as Penalty Fares Regulations or the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ticketless travel information is commercially confidential. However, I would not use Scotland's railways (which cannot in law issue Penalty Fares and which, due to Covid rules had nearly two years of no proper on train checking) as a 'good' example of how to ensure everyone buys a ticket.

 

[yorkie]

Ticketless travel information is commercially confidential. However, I would not use Scotland's railways (which cannot in law issue Penalty Fares and which, due to Covid rules had nearly two years of no proper on train checking) as a 'good' example of how to ensure everyone buys a ticket.

Actually I would; the incentive is very much there for Scotrail to check and issue tickets and to do so in a non-confrontational but no-nonsense manner.

I've made journeys into suburban Glasgow where no ticket checking occured oin the entire journey until I was on the train from Glasgow Central and in some cases the check can occur literally as the train is pulling out of the platform. In contrast, it's very rare for me to get a ticket check on my trains home (to York) on an evening.

 

[reb0118]

ScotRail seem to manage perfectly fine without the need to resort to prosecutions as soon as there is a disagreement.

Fare evasion is rife on certain ScotRail lines. Certain passengers just tell us to eff off or simply refuse to engage - and their numbers are growing. The BTP are so under strength in Scotland that they are less use than a chocolate fire guard. The justice system does not deem it worthwhile to prosecute what it classifies as low level crime - does anyone know of a bylaw offence being prosecuted in Scotland? - and private prosecutions here are so rare that they are effectively impossible to obtain.

I wouldn't say the revenue enforcement system in Scotland is broken merely that we do not have one.

 

[RPI]

An MG11 is simply a form filled out by the inspector, before the MG11 is even submitted to a court then the customer is offered a "settlement" of some sort in most cases.

 

[jon0844]

It's hardly the only route. They could use the other powers available to them to recover the fare. For example requiring name and address to send a 'bill', if necessary detaining people where they refuse to give their details.

ScotRail seem to manage perfectly fine without the need to resort to prosecutions as soon as there is a disagreement - and so did Virgin Trains. It's simply a commercial decision, that it's easiest and most convenient for the TOC to prosecute (or threaten to do so).

But an MG11 is just a process of requesting information (a witness form) and giving the company an opportunity to follow up later. It doesn't mean automatic prosecution, and could well result in someone simply being asked to pay the fare if they give a suitable explanation.

MG11 is not a prosecution, but may well lead to one upon investigation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ticketless travel information is commercially confidential. However, I would not use Scotland's railways (which cannot in law issue Penalty Fares and which, due to Covid rules had nearly two years of no proper on train checking) as a 'good' example of how to ensure everyone buys a ticket.

I don't have an issue with Penalty Fares, actually I strongly support them and think fare evasion should be decriminalised and only dealt with that way, unless a ticket is actually falsified in which case a general fraud case could be pursued.

Why can't Scotland have them? I know (and support) the fact that private prosecutions aren't viable, but a PF isn't that.

But an MG11 is just a process of requesting information (a witness form) and giving the company an opportunity to follow up later. It doesn't mean automatic prosecution, and could well result in someone simply being asked to pay the fare if they give a suitable explanation.

MG11 is not a prosecution, but may well lead to one upon investigation.

Perhaps the real problem is that an unpaid fares notice used, mostly, just to result in a bill for the fare (a standard admin fee wouldn't be unreasonable) whereas now it tends to go straight to either prosecution or extortion? (I personally believe the use of the threat of a private prosecution to extort money is just that; I would like to see private prosecutions wholly banned and only the CPS able to bring a prosecution).

 

[gnolife]

Why can't Scotland have them? I know (and support) the fact that private prosecutions aren't viable, but a PF isn't that.

Is it not that the legislation permitting PFs only affects England and Wales?

 

[Western Sunset]

Out of curiosity, what do the letters "MG" on said form mean, and are there ten other variants? The name of the form always conjures up Russian fighter jets to me...

 

[skyhigh]

Out of curiosity, what do the letters "MG" on said form mean, and are there ten other variants? The name of the form always conjures up Russian fighter jets to me...

Manual of Guidance. It is essentially just a witness statement.

 

[swt_passenger]

Out of curiosity, what do the letters "MG" on said form mean, and are there ten other variants? The name of the form always conjures up Russian fighter jets to me...

There’s a list here: https://www.criminaljusticehub.org.uk/task/mg-forms/

Basically everyone involved in potential prosecution uses the same form numbers, but there’ll be a lot of them not relevant to a straightforward fares issue.

 

[Watershed]

Ticketless travel information is commercially confidential.

This claim is often made (particularly when making spurious refusals to FoI requests) but it does not really hold up to scrutiny. TOCs frequently make press releases about the number of people they have prosecuted etc. And what loss, precisely, would TOCs suffer if they revealed this information? Broad figures are in the public domain anyway.

However, I would not use Scotland's railways (which cannot in law issue Penalty Fares and which, due to Covid rules had nearly two years of no proper on train checking) as a 'good' example of how to ensure everyone buys a ticket.

Covid regulations were applied very differently by different TOCs. Similarly to TfW, ScotRail took a very restrictive interpretation compared to LNER for example. I would have said that any such issues were largely self-imposed.

That said, clearly prosecutions and Penalty Fares are not essential to the running of the rail network, and ultimately it is a political decision that the government would rather earn a bit of extra money from them. There's little incentive for them to have TOCs treat passengers fairly, and handle disputes between a customer and supplier in the same way they would be handled in any other sector.

But an MG11 is just a process of requesting information (a witness form) and giving the company an opportunity to follow up later. It doesn't mean automatic prosecution, and could well result in someone simply being asked to pay the fare if they give a suitable explanation.

MG11 is not a prosecution, but may well lead to one upon investigation.

It doesn't guarantee a prosecution but it wouldn't be filled out unless a prosecution were on the cards!

Is it not that the legislation permitting PFs only affects England and Wales?

As per Part 1 of the Regulations, the legislation does apply in Scotland, but does not apply in relation to services:

(a) provided under a Scottish franchise agreement;
(b) a Scotland-only service;
(c) a service the provision of which is secured by the Scottish Ministers;

The Scottish Ministers have the power to introduce their own Regulations in relation to such services, but have chosen not to do so.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Why? Because they can. The law is heavily skewed in favour of the TOCs. Passengers don't need to have intent to avoid payment to be committing an offence. TOCs can use the threat of prosecution to extract substantial (and often disproportionate) settlements.

The underlying narrative on here that TOCs prosecute everybody they can for anything they can think of is totally untrue. On my travels I have seen blatant fare dodgers let off with a brief warning and discounted tickets sold to ticketless passengers who had every opportunity to buy before boarding. Some people who have made innocent, and at times understandable, mistakes almost certainly do occasionally end up being treated too harshly but most of those prosecuted, no doubt the vast majority, are guilty and just because someone has posted a fairy tale* on a website doesn’t mean they are not guilty.

* Not a reference to the particular case linked to in the OP but just a general observation that many of the stories posted in this section have so many holes in them you have to be very naïve or intentionally blind to not see them.

 

[nanstallon]

Given the notable differences between English and Scottish law that can hardly be said to be a matter of choice.

Perhaps Scottish law is more sensible than English law. Not for the first time!

 

[Haywain]

Perhaps Scottish law is more sensible than English law. Not for the first time!

It’s a legal system with significant differences to the English (& Welsh) system. As such, any benefits of the difference are irrelevant if we are dealing with English law.

 

[CyrusWuff]

As an aside, at my TOC the MG11 and Travel Irregularity Report forms were virtually identical apart from the prefix for the serial number. The only real difference between the two being that an MG11 is completed under caution, which Revenue Protection staff get additional training for.

In most cases, however, passengers would generally be given the opportunity to rectify it prior to a Penalty Fare or TIR/MG11 being considered.

 

[RPI]

A UFN/PF is an MG11, certainly the GWR ones. They are in the same format complete with a declaration at the bottom, this is for when either remains unpaid and is escalated to court. I think we've established now that an MG11 is simply the name of the form completed and when one is completed the passenger is mostly given the opportunity to settle the matter before court.