Why is there such a disparity in outcomes? Surely it's time for a better system?

[ianBR]

I was on a train this week which had two RPIs and one security officer board.

In my carriage there were the following two people caught right near me, both of whom were given a simple penalty fare
1) No ticket with no attempt at an excuse as to why one was not purchased
2) Attempting to flash a railcard which had expired a year ago (and the person knew it had expired)

Meanwhile it's clear elsewhere on this forum that other people can find themselves up for prosecution on the basis of having a railcard that had expired a few days ago without realising, who then face added administration fees way in excess of a penalty fare

Would it not be better and fairer to just move to penalty fares for all first time offenders? Increasing the penalty fare amount makes it suitably attractive for train companies, and it would remove the randomness of the current system.

Having commuted for the best part of 20 years it's also clear to me that middle class/polite people tend to come off worse in the current system. I've seen people who give verbal abuse back allowed to buy a ticket (instead of a fine), or threatened with the BTP only to get off the train at the next station rather than the destination they had mentioned (or invariably the BTP don't attend if they stay on to the final destination).


Meanwhile someone who uses the naff trainline app which fails to tell them their stored railcard in the app has expired can find themselves facing the full wrath of the law, or settlement figures way higher than a penalty fare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I totally agree that the railway should lose its ability to prosecute, other than for a regular fraud charge for major cases of wilful fraud and falsification. It is grossly misused.

The Penalty Fare should be used for everything else, I completely agree. And if someone is felt to have made a genuine mistake, they should be let off, but with details taken so a second offence within a short period would automatically mean a PF.

 

[yorkie]

TOCs should be stripped of their powers to prosecute people; the law should be changed.

I agree the current system is heavily stacked against polite people and those who work in jobs that require a clean record (I don't want to get into the "class" debate but such jobs absolutely include low paid ones, while some higher paid jobs may have no such requirements, so any concept of "class" is an irrelevance in my opinion).

Scroates don't care and there is no punishment that will make them change their ways, while good honest people who are not being accused of intending to avoid payment of the fare can still be facing a criminal prosecution (under the archaic Railway Byelaws) or a huge Penalty Fare, simply for making an honest mistake.

It's also worth noting that Penalty Fares are ostensibly not for people who are intending to avoid payment but are an extortionately high fare charged to people who make mistakes under certain circumstances, by some train companies.

Chiltern Penalty Fares.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.

 

[furlong]

It's also worth noting that Penalty Fares are ostensibly not for people who are intending to avoid payment but are an extortionately high fare charged to people who make mistakes under certain circumstances, by some train companies.

Penalty Fares were introduced to take low-level fare dodging out of the criminal system. It is not a "completely different matter". Read the parliamentary debates and the SRA's publications.

Penalty Fares absolutely ARE intended ONLY for people who intended not to pay their fare - fare dodgers - and NOT meant for people who didn't - but that was viewed as acceptable collateral damage given all the safeguards in place (warnings everywhere possible, consistency of application, easy to obtain permits to travel taking only a few seconds, appeals system etc.). In return for the simple out-of-court disposal, and with all the safeguards in place, the burden of proof was reversed - with a Penalty Fare, provided the train company meets the myriad of requirements placed upon it to protect honest passengers, the culprit is left to prove their innocence and if they can't persuade the inspector at the time that it wasn't deliberate, then they can try to persuade one of the appeals panels. What's gone wrong is some train companies failing to keep their side of the bargain leading to inconsistency and confusion e.g. selling commercial advertising in places that should properly display PF warnings and deploying only minimal notices instead of plastering them everywhere they're required to be, removing quick and simple Permit to Travel machines without providing suitable replacements, allowing staff to blithely sell tickets on board without disciplining them when they fail to warn people about PFs etc. etc.

 

[cle]

What should be completely not allowed (and I think this should be the case for parking too) - is incentivzation or reward based on the amount of penalty fare / fines doled out. RPIs should be able to use enough discretion - and most do - to be reasonable and see the difference between somebody who missed an expired railcard or took a non-permitted but fairly logical route, missed a stop/wrong service etc etc - vs people who clearly have no intention to pay the right fare, or any fare at all.

There shouldn't be an incentive to not be decent and fair, as we see with parking inspectors who might be lenient/reasonable otherwise.

However, those latter people should be made to pay immediately. A bank payment or contactless via phone is feasible for most people. Name/address stuff is faked, and paperwork goes in the bin.

 

[yorkie]

Penalty Fares were introduced to take low-level fare dodging out of the criminal system. It is not a "completely different matter". Read the parliamentary debates and the SRA's publications.

What they were originally introduced for and how TOCs use them now are not the same thing; unfortunately the SRA's sensible policies have been disbanded by the absolute shambles that is the DfT.

I have major concerns that not all safeguards within the SRA Penalty Fares Rules were brought into the new Guidelines; this leaves several areas undocumented except by reading and interpreting the NRCoT and the legislation.

It is utterly appalling that Penalty Fares can be issued to people who make a mistake or, in some cases, even follow suggestions / advice from staff!

This is a very unsatisfactory position, but I believe the DfT are very happy because it enables the TOCs to get away with things.

Is there anyone on this forum who was involved with Penalty Fares back in the days of the SRA? If so, please do get in touch...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Appears "The Man in Seat 61" was responsible for the 2003 rewrite:

https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1648417759548567555

When I revised the Penalty Fares Rules in 2003, my boss suggested I got them the PEC Crystal Mark. His ears may have been burning at some points in the process - but useful lessons learned and we got the Crystal Mark! Dare say seat61 incorporates some of those lessons!

 

[yorkie]

Thanks; what a different world it was on the railway back then.

These days I think the DfT and the TOCs would be keen to avoid a Crystal Mark; indeed I suspect they'd prefer an Obfuscation Mark if there was such a thing.

 

[Turtle]

Thanks; what a different world it was on the railway back then.

These days I think the DfT and the TOCs would be keen to avoid a Crystal Mark; indeed I suspect they'd prefer an Obfuscation Mark if there was such a thing.

Quite. And there should be no question of any kind of penalty/ fine where there has been no pecuniary loss to the railway.

 

[43066]

In my carriage there were the following two people caught right near me, both of whom were given a simple penalty fare
1) No ticket with no attempt at an excuse as to why one was not purchased
2) Attempting to flash a railcard which had expired a year ago (and the person knew it had expired)

Based on the experiences reported on here, penalty fares being used in these scenarios would be fairly typical, albeit 2 has a few aggravating factors tending towards a prosecution situation, so perhaps that person was lucky!

Meanwhile it's clear elsewhere on this forum that other people can find themselves up for prosecution on the basis of having a railcard that had expired a few days ago without realising, who then face added administration fees way in excess of a penalty fare

How many people are we actually talking about? Even on here, it is generally accepted that very few cases of that nature (ie a simple mistake around validity, without evidence of more) would be prosecuted.

As for suffering a penalty fare, at the end of the day, if you’re on a train without a valid ticket, whose fault is it!?

Would it not be better and fairer to just move to penalty fares for all first time offenders? Increasing the penalty fare amount makes it suitably attractive for train companies, and it would remove the randomness of the current system.

Be careful what you wish for. At the moment discretion is shown, which isn’t quite the same as randomness, and benefits more fare evaders than it ensnares. It would be equally “fair” (in the sense of being consistent) to prosecute each and every case to the fullest extent of the law.

Having commuted for the best part of 20 years it's also clear to me that middle class/polite people tend to come off worse in the current system. I've seen people who give verbal abuse back allowed to buy a ticket (instead of a fine), or threatened with the BTP only to get off the train at the next station rather than the destination they had mentioned (or invariably the BTP don't attend if they stay on to the final destination).

After commuting for a similar time it’s clear to me that: (1) the vast majority of fare dodgers get away with no punishment whatsoever: (2) sensible people who display a good attitude and a modicum of people skills generally get more favourable outcomes (as in most areas of life).

On the other hand, those at the extreme end who threaten physical violence, or give no details at all, are likely to get away Scott free, which I agree is unfair on those who cooperate (or those who happen to be challenged when BTP are close at hand). However that is a result of a failure of enforcement, rather than a criticism of the current system itself.

It is grossly misused.

It is rarely used at all!

Can you point to any examples of the power to prosecute being misused in a legal sense, as opposed to the I don’t agree with the power existing in the first place, therefore any use of it is misuse sense? (eg a conviction being overturned on appeal, or an example of a vexatious prosecution being brought and successfully stayed as an abuse of process?).

I have no doubt there might be some examples, but the question would then be whether railway prosecutions have a worse track record than those in other areas?

TOCs should be stripped of their powers to prosecute people; the law should be changed.

What is your specific objection to the law as it stands? Is there any evidence that the law as it stands deters people from travelling by rail, or that average passengers (as opposed to fare evaders and those who seek to defend their corner) want to see it made more lenient?

I start from the position that fare evasion costs the industry in the region of £250m per year, and contributes to the following bad outcomes:

- as a railway staff member, I have been denied a pay rises based on “not enough money”;

- as a railway enthusiast, I want to see the railway being invested in and and thriving, rather than lack of finance being used as an excuse to starve it of investment;

- as a tax payer I would ask: why should my tax £ subsidise those who, either deliberately or carelessly, fail to pay the proper fare?
As such I agree with the thread title, but the “better system” I envisage would be one that enforces the current rules more effectively, and certainly one with higher penalty fares. It isn’t directly relevant to ticketing but, where passengers cause delays through bad behaviour, I believe TOCs should pursue them through the civil courts for the cost of the delay minutes, in a similar way to airlines when passengers cause flights to be diverted.

I have no doubt that we will have to agree to disagree on this but, I can assure you, my view is a widely held one.

I agree the current system is heavily stacked against polite people and those who work in jobs that require a clean record

Those working in jobs that require a clean record would certainly be well advised to ensure they don’t make these mistakes in the first place, and people working in these roles are fully aware of this (and I say that as a former solicitor). Would you want to be advised by a solicitor or an accountant who bunks train fares on a regular basis? I most certainly wouldn’t.

simply for making an honest mistake.

But an honest mistake is invariably also a careless mistake. The law certainly isn’t slow to punish careless mistakes in other areas, so why should this be any different?

It's also worth noting that Penalty Fares are ostensibly not for people who are intending to avoid payment but are an extortionately high fare charged to people who make mistakes under certain circumstances, by some train companies.

I’m not sure I agree with that guidance from Chiltern, which gives mixed and confusing messages (I also seem to remember that guidance being discussed on here previously).

A penalty fare is an alternative to prosecution and AIUI there aren’t any situations where a penalty fare can be given where a criminal prosecution isn’t also an option (can anyone suggest any?). Therefore it absolutely isn’t a “completely different matter” to fare dodging, it’s simply an alternative way of dealing a situation involving prima facie evidence of an offence being committed.

To quote the government’s guidance:

Rail Penalty Fare value reform

www.gov.uk

The Penalty Fare regulations allow TOCs to target fare evaders, and therefore reduce the costs of ticketless travel while ensuring that honest, fare-paying passengers are not unfairly penalised.

Which accords with my view, and exposes Chiltern’s statement as incorrect and misleading.

Quite. And there should be no question of any kind of penalty/ fine where there has been no pecuniary loss to the railway.

I think you’re confusing fines with damages.

 

[stuu]

I was on a train before Christmas, a woman behind me had a ticket for the following day. She had to buy a new ticket, she seemed to have genuinely got the days wrong as she was in tears about it and having to pay for a new ticket and how much it would cost.

A couple of rows in front, another woman had the an off peak ticket on a peak train. She was adamant she wasn't going to buy another one, or give her details. She wasn't rude or aggressive, and after being asked a couple more times the ticket inspector moved off down the carriage and never came back.

I guess there isn't anything much they can do, as there's zero chance of the BTP going to Taunton for an incorrect ticket. But it did seem incredibly unfair, and a valuable lesson for any fare evaders

 

[yorkie]

What is your specific objection to the law as it stands?

Does any other industry have byelaws that criminalise people in the way that the Railway Byelaws do?

Is there any evidence that the law as it stands deters people from travelling by rail, or that average passengers (as opposed to fare evaders and those who seek to defend their corner) want to see it made more lenient?

The 'average passenger' probably has no idea how harsh the law is.

I start from the position that fare evasion costs the industry in the region of £250m per year, and contributes to the following bad outcomes:

- as a railway staff member, I have been denied a pay rises based on “not enough money”;

- as a railway enthusiast, I want to see the railway being invested in and and thriving, rather than lack of finance being used as an excuse to starve it of investment;

- as a tax payer I would ask: why should my tax £ subsidise those who, either deliberately or carelessly, fail to pay the proper fare?

As such I agree with the thread title, but the “better system” I envisage would be one that enforces the current rules more effectively, and certainly one with higher penalty fares. It isn’t directly relevant to ticketing but, where passengers cause delays through bad behaviour, I believe TOCs should pursue them through the civil courts for the cost of the delay minutes, in a similar way to airlines when passengers cause flights to be diverted.

I have no doubt that we will have to agree to disagree on this but, I can assure you, my view is a widely held one.

The byelaws criminalise people who have bought a ticket for the journey they are making but are deemed to be on the wrong train (for example the recent Lumo incident when disruption occurred on LNER); this does not make them fare evaders by any reasonable interpretation.

I don't think the majority of the population support criminalising people simply for having the wrong ticket, without any intent to avoid payment of the fare.

Those working in jobs that require a clean record would certainly be well advised to ensure they don’t make these mistakes in the first place, and people working in these roles are fully aware of this (and I say that as a former solicitor). Would you want to be advised by a solicitor or an accountant who bunks train fares on a regular basis? I most certainly wouldn’t.

Such "mistakes" could consist of following suggestions/advice given by railway staff.

But an honest mistake is invariably also a careless mistake. The law certainly isn’t slow to punish careless mistakes in other areas, so why should this be any different?

Which other industries allow for customers to be prosecuted when the customer had no intention to avoid payment for the product or service? Can you give any comparable examples?

I’m not sure I agree with that guidance from Chiltern, which gives mixed and confusing messages (I also seem to remember that guidance being discussed on here previously).

I'm glad you agree with me that customers are given mixed and confusing messages; I don't think the rail industry should be giving mixed and confusing messages, would you agree?

A penalty fare is an alternative to prosecution and AIUI there aren’t any situations where a penalty fare can be given where a criminal prosecution isn’t also an option (can anyone suggest any?). Therefore it absolutely isn’t a “completely different matter” to fare dodging, it’s simply an alternative way of dealing a situation involving prima facie evidence of an offence being committed.

A passenger who finds a long queue at a station and fully intends to pay the fare and approaches staff immediately on boarding could still be given a Penalty Fare.

A passenger who boards a train operated by the wrong company could be given a Penalty Fare; there have been instances of Northern and TPE using each others rolling stock and/or each others staff, and many common stations are served, not all screens clearly state the operator of the train and delays can occur which would require the use of the alternative operator in order for the rail industry to adhere to the regulations regarding delays to customers.

To quote the government’s guidance:

Rail Penalty Fare value reform

www.gov.uk

Which accords with my view, and exposes Chiltern’s statement as incorrect and misleading.

Penalty Fares are a complete mess; the DfT and train companies will use whatever weasel words suit their particular argument at any given time.

It is absolutely the case that Penalty Fares can be, and are given, to people who have no intention of avoiding the fare. Whether they should be or not, is another matter, which the rail industry seems to be rather confused over.

 

[43066]

Does any other industry have byelaws that criminalise people in the way that the Railway Byelaws do?

Off the top of my head: the bus industry does, yes. TfL includes strict liability offences.

I asked what your specific objection is, yet I’m none the wiser, because you have responded by asking another question!

There are byelaws covering many areas (including strict liability offences) covering various industries - local authorities, power companies water companies, National Trust properties etc.

The fact there is no direct equivalent to the railway is simply because the railway has no direct equivalent (albeit buses come close) in terms of the service it provides, and how vulnerable that is to misuse. Therefore the law has been tailored to protect the public and responsible railway users from harm.

The 'average passenger' probably has no idea how harsh the law is.

How do you know? As I’ve asked, do you have any evidence that the current legal position has any detrimental effect on passenger numbers? Are you suggesting that law abiding, responsible users of the railway don’t wish to see transgressors deterred and punished?

Is there any evidence that this issue is even a concern outside of this forum? I’ve never seen any press coverage or politicians complaining about people being “criminalised”.

I completely disagree with the suggestion. that the law is “harsh”. A byelaw conviction is barely more than a speeding ticket in terms of severity. Even this is only a theoretical risk for the person who makes a mistake, or are you denying that the vast majority of ticketing offences are dealt with other than by way of prosecution?

On the contrary, the massive cost of evasion indicates that the law in this area is too weak and/or isn’t effectively enforced. I’ve only ever seen you criticising the current enforcement regime, you never seem to suggest any solutions to combat this scourge.

If the law is changed, as per your suggestion, would that result in the losses to the railway increasing or decreasing? If it’s the former, other fare payers will have to cover the shortfall. That sounds like a rather anti-customer approach to me…

The byelaws criminalise people who have bought a ticket for the journey they are making but are deemed to be on the wrong train (for example the recent Lumo incident when disruption occurred on LNER); this does not make them fare evaders by any reasonable interpretation.

I don't think the majority of the population support criminalising people simply for having the wrong ticket, without any intent to avoid payment of the fare.

No, people criminalise themselves by falling foul of the byelaws. You don’t have to be a “fare evader” to do so, you can do the same by being careless, by being drunk on the railway etc. That is an example of the law working as it should.

If I forget to renew my car insurance and drive my car on the public highway I will be guilty of a strict liability criminal offence. The fact I did it by accident is irrelevant: the onus was on me to check. The principle here is exactly the same.

The railway doesn’t set its own bylaws, and the railway doesn’t decide on guilt or innocence. That decision is made by a court. Are you suggesting there’s something wrong with the UK criminal court system?

Such "mistakes" could consist of following suggestions/advice given by railway staff.

Ah that old chestnut: “the man at the ticket barrier told me I could board the train”. Can you cite an example of someone who has been prosecuted having followed the advice of railway staff?

If you choose do a job like that, you are held to a higher standard than the general population, and will generally earn a salary commensurate with that. Therefore the onus is on you to be whiter than white.

Which other industries allow for customers to be prosecuted when the customer had no intention to avoid payment for the product or service? Can you give any comparable examples?

As above, the bus industry. Strict liability offences also exist in other areas. BBC TV licensing would be a relevant example. Again there is no direct equivalent to the railway, but the railway is somewhat unique.

Can you give any examples of people on the railway actually being prosecuted for mistakes? The overwhelming majority of cases in the disputes forum involve people deliberately evading fares.

If this is such a big problem, or if the railway’s powers are being misused, surely you must be able to point to cases of “innocent mistakes” as you call them resulting in prosecution? I have seen no evidence that this is seen as a problem by most of the population outside of this forum, and there is no movement to try to change it that I’m aware of.

I'm glad you agree with me that customers are given mixed and confusing messages; I don't think the rail industry should be giving mixed and confusing messages, would you agree?

Yes. I think most people would?

A passenger who finds a long queue at a station and fully intends to pay the fare and approaches staff immediately on boarding could still be given a Penalty Fare.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of intention in the criminal law sense. If I fully intended to pay, but change my mind when I saw a queue = I intended not to pay!

In just the same way, if I was in a long queue at a supermarket and decided to walk out without paying, I would be guilty of shop lifting.

A passenger who boards a train operated by the wrong company could be given a Penalty Fare;

That’s like saying: “I got a speeding ticket for driving my car on a road with the wrong speed limit.”

You mean a passenger who boards a train operated a company for which they hold the wrong ticket could be given a penalty fare.

there have been instances of Northern and TPE using each others rolling stock and/or each others staff, and many common stations are served, not all screens clearly state the operator of the train and delays can occur which would require the use of the alternative operator in order for the rail industry to adhere to the regulations regarding delays to customers.

Have there been instances of people being prosecuted as a result of boarding a train believing it was another operator’s service? Are you suggesting that passengers don’t have an obligation to ensure they’re on the correct train for the ticket they’ve purchased?

Penalty Fares are a complete mess; the DfT and train companies will use whatever weasel words suit their particular argument at any given time.

But isn’t that exactly what you have done by jumping onto a misleading statement by one operator, and suggesting that is an authoritative statement of the law in this area?

It is absolutely the case that Penalty Fares can be, and are given, to people who have no intention of avoiding the fare. Whether they should be or not, is another matter, which the rail industry seems to be rather confused over.

Yes, and that is an example of the law being used as intended. The alternative is that those people are prosecuted instead.

 

[yorkie]

Off the top of my head: the bus industry does, yes. TfL includes strict liability offences.

OK that's one example of another area where this shouldn't happen. It's certainly not widespread.

I asked what your specific objection is, yet I’m none the wiser, because you have responded by asking another question!

I am not sure what you are wanting to know exactly? As I've said the byelaws criminalise people who had no intention of wrongdoing; why would anyone be happy with that?

There are byelaws covering many areas (including strict liability offences) covering various industries - local authorities, power companies water companies, National Trust properties etc.

Can you give examples where customers have been prosecuted who had no intention of doing anything wrong?

The fact there is no direct equivalent to the railway is simply because the railway has no direct equivalent (albeit buses come close) in terms of the service it provides, and how vulnerable that is to misuse. Therefore the law has been tailored to protect the public and responsible railway users from harm.

And yet these laws are not used in Scotland; is there evidence of more harm occuring in Scotland than England & Wales?

How do you know? As I’ve asked, do you have any evidence that the current legal position has any detrimental effect on passenger numbers?

Doubtful as people generally aren't aware of the archaic byelaws and many people would assume it wouldn't happen to them or would have no realistic alternative but to travel. The effects of mistreating customers is very difficult to measure.

Are you suggesting that law abiding, responsible users of the railway don’t wish to see transgressors deterred and punished?

I don't think the average person would agree that someone who has no intention of wrongdoing should be prosecuted.

Is there any evidence that this issue is even a concern outside of this forum? I’ve never seen any press coverage or politicians complaining about people being “criminalised”.

Is it widely reported elsewhere? It's certainly been the case that people who have been issued penalty fares or asked to pay out of court settlements when not intending to avoid payment of the fare have generated negative press stories. A classic example of this was a few years ago when numerous threads popped up on this forum, referrin to news items which involved passengers being charged for starting or finishing short. The comments sections of such publications would be very hostile to the rail industry.

I completely disagree with the suggestion. that the law is “harsh”. A byelaw conviction is barely more than a speeding ticket in terms of severity. Even this is only a theoretical risk for the person who makes a mistake, or are you denying that the vast majority of ticketing offences are dealt with other than by way of prosecution?

Have you read this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-related-to-rail-travel.243356/#post-6134156 where a non-recordable Byelaw offence became a big deal (in that case, the offence could have been prosected under the Regulations of Railways Act but that's a different argument/point altogether)

On the contrary, the massive cost of evasion indicates that the law in this area is too weak and/or isn’t effectively enforced.

Is there any evidence that the cost of fare evasion in Scotland is greater than in England & Wales?

I’ve only ever seen you criticising the current enforcement regime, you never seem to suggest any solutions to combat this scourge.

For the most part, Scotland does things pretty well, especially in the Strathclyde area, where regular patrols of trains are made, and tickets are much more likely to be checked than in many parts of England (not just routes with only one member of staff, but also a lot of services near me, which have two staff on board, not just a driver, rarely see checks made).

If the law is changed, as per your suggestion, would that result in the losses to the railway increasing or decreasing? If it’s the former, other fare payers will have to cover the shortfall. That sounds like a rather anti-customer approach to me…

Is the amount of money lost due to fare evasion in Scotland higher than in England & Wales?

No, people criminalise themselves by falling foul of the byelaws. You don’t have to be a “fare evader” to do so, you can do the same by being careless, by being drunk on the railway etc. That is an example of the law working as it should.

Unfortunately the way the Byelaws are worded, a strict interpretation is that a ticket which is invalid for any reason, including those remedied by the NRCoT, could result in a conviction. My argument would be that the NRCoT has to be read in conjunction with the Byelaws, but it remains the case that some people have been treated as falling foul of the Byelaws due to a simple ticket restriction. I don't think the current system has sufficien safeguards in place to ensure that customers whose ticket is invalid due to a ticket restriction (such as a time or route restriction) are always treated as being entitled to an excess fare, rather than be prosecuted or faced with a Penalty Fare.

If you are on the wrong train company, you can be prosecuted. However it is not always clear which train company a train is operated by; not all screens will display this information and train companies such as Northern & TPE have been known to lease each other's trains and even staff. So you can't always tell by the livery of the train or even the uniform of the staff.

It's been reported on this forum that internal agreements have been made with certain companies that if a delay to a passenger would be 61 or more minutes, ticket acceptance is automatically in place, however this is not always respected by staff, who may deem a passengers' ticket as invalid and the customer could be threatened with prosecution. Are there sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that where staff make mistakes of this nature, a threat of prosecution would not proceeed?

Do you think the passenger involved in the Lumo incident should have been threatened with prosecution?

If your ticket is lost or stolen, you can be deemed guilty of a Byelaw offence, even if you could prove that you had purchased the ticket by presenting receipts and booking confirmation emails, and there does not have to be any suggestion that the customer was in any way attempting to avoid the fare for such a prosecution to proceed.

If I forget to renew my car insurance and drive my car on the public highway I will be guilty of a strict liability criminal offence. The fact I did it by accident is irrelevant: the onus was on me to check. The principle here is exactly the same.

It isn't the same; can car insurances be excessed, can acceptance be in place between different operators, does car insurance have different routeing and time restriction options etc? You said earlier "the railway has no direct equivalent" and that statement is more correct than this one.

The railway doesn’t set its own bylaws, and the railway doesn’t decide on guilt or innocence. That decision is made by a court. Are you suggesting there’s something wrong with the UK criminal court system?

Absolutely yes, the legal system does need to be changed and the byelaws should not criminalise railway ticketing matters, at least not under the byelaws.

Ah that old chestnut: “the man at the ticket barrier told me I could board the train”. Can you cite an example of someone who has been prosecuted having followed the advice of railway staff?

In the case documented at https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-and-invalid-tickets-opinions-please.245901/ the passenger was wrongly told to leave the train; had they not done so, they could have faced prosecution.

If you do a job like that, you are held to a higher standard than the general population and will generally earn a salary commensurately with that. Therefore the onus is on you to be whiter than white.

Are you suggesting that someone who travels on the wrong train company should not do a job that requires a clean record? I was on a train from Leeds to York and was chatting to someone who is a teacher who was found to be on a TOC specific ticket and was sold a new ticket. Should he have been prosecuted (as the law allows), and should he be struck off for that?

As above, the bus industry. Strict liability offences also exist in other areas. BBC TV licensing would be a relevant example. Again there is no direct equivalent to the railway, but the railway is somewhat unique.

Can you give any examples of people on the railway actually being prosecuted for mistakes? The overwhelming majority of cases in the disputes forum involve people deliberately evading fares.

This case was prosecuted by FCC: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...itinerary-via-hatfield-fcc-prosecution.66439/ ; FCC lost he case

If this is such a big problem, or if the railway’s powers are being misused, surely you must be able to point to cases of “innocent mistakes” as you call them resulting in prosecution? I have seen no evidence that this is seen as a problem by most of the population outside of this forum, and there is no movement to try to change it that I’m aware of.

Here is another example: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/taken-to-court-facing-criminal-charges-advice-needed.156920/ ; the passenger was travelling from Manchester to Andover with a "via London ticket" and travelled via Reading (avoiding the double-back into Paddington) and instead of being issued a zero fare excess (or simply being accepted) , XC chose to prosecute.

The passenger felt they couldn't risk a prosecution, due to the nature of their job, so paid a four figure sum to a solitcitor who agreed with XC that the case would be dropped, but did not arrange for compensation for the passenger, who was left out of pocket.

Yes. I think most people would?

I am glad we are agreed with me that most would agree that the train companies are engaging in wrongdoing

I think you misunderstand the meaning of intention in the criminal law sense. If I fully intended to pay, but change my mind when I saw a queue = I intended not to pay!

People have been threatened with prosecution when doing no such thing (or equivalent thing).

In just the same way, if I was in a long queue at a supermarket and decided to walk out without paying, I would be guilty of shop lifting.

But this isn't the correct comparison. (Incidentally, if a passenger boards and alights at unstaffed stations with no facility to pay and no check is made on board, they aren't guilty of any offence, so the analogy doesn't quite work anyway)

That’s like saying: “I got a speeding ticket for driving my car on a road with the wrong speed limit.”

These analogies are frought with issues; I don't agree with any of these analogies being appropriate or relevant.

You mean a passenger who boards a train operated a company for which they hold the wrong ticket could be given a penalty fare.

A passenger who boards a train with a TOC specific ticket and travels on the wrong TOC can be given a Penalty Fare; as detailed earlier a train can be operated in the livery of a different TOC and the staff may even be empoyed by a different TOC.

In some instances of passengers being deemed as travelling without a valid ticket, the customer actually had a contractual entitlement to be re-routed and/or ticket acceptance was agreed by the relevant companies to be in place; as this can be a prosecutable offence, passengers in that situation have on occasion chosen to alight from trains at remote stations, at great inconvenience to them.

Have there been instances of people being prosecuted as a result of boarding a train believe it was another operators’ service?

I'd be shocked if there wasn't any!

Are you suggesting that passengers don’t have an obligation to ensure they’re on the correct train for the ticket they’ve purchased?

I am not saying those obligations don't exist, but should passengers be automatically guilty of a strict liability offence when doing so?

Also the definition of "correct train" is subject to interpretation when delays, cancellations and other disruptions occur; for example there have been recent instances of Northern/TPE staff refusing to allow each others customers on alternative services, and yet a member reports that an agreement between the companies to accept travel in the event of significant delays is in place.

But isn’t that exactly what you have done by jumping onto a misleading statement by one operator, and suggesting that is an authoritative statement of the law in this area?

I stand by what I posted earlier. A reminder that I said the following in respect of what you describe as a "misleading statement":

It's also worth noting that Penalty Fares are ostensibly not for people who are intending to avoid payment but are an extortionately high fare charged to people who make mistakes under certain circumstances, by some train companies.

I then quoted the Chiltern Penalty Fare leaflet (note that Chiltern are not the only TOC to make this claim); if anyone wants to write to Chiltern to ask them to clarify their position, I'd be interested to hear it!

Yes, and that is an example of the law being used as intended. The alternative is that those people are prosecuted instead.

I am glad you agree that Penalty Fares are being issued to people who have no intention of avoiding the fare (in England & Wales). However I don't agree that the only realistic alternative, when a passenger has made a mistake of the sort described, but has not intended to avoid the fare, should be a prosecution. Neither of these options are available in Scotland and yet I doubt fare evasion is more rife there than in England & Wales; do you have any evieence that it is?

 

[Turtle]

OK that's one example of another area where this shouldn't happen. It's certainly not widespread.

I am not sure what you are wanting to know exactly? As I've said the byelaws criminalise people who had no intention of wrongdoing; why would anyone be happy with that?

Can you give examples where customers have been prosecuted who had no intention of doing anything wrong?

And yet these laws are not used in Scotland; is there evidence of more harm occuring in Scotland than England & Wales?

Doubtful as people generally aren't aware of the archaic byelaws and many people would assume it wouldn't happen to them or would have no realistic alternative but to travel. The effects of mistreating customers is very difficult to measure.

I don't think the average person would agree that someone who has no intention of wrongdoing should be prosecuted.

Is it widely reported elsewhere? It's certainly been the case that people who have been issued penalty fares or asked to pay out of court settlements when not intending to avoid payment of the fare have generated negative press stories. A classic example of this was a few years ago when numerous threads popped up on this forum, referrin to news items which involved passengers being charged for starting or finishing short. The comments sections of such publications would be very hostile to the rail industry.

Have you read this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-related-to-rail-travel.243356/#post-6134156 where a non-recordable Byelaw offence became a big deal (in that case, the offence could have been prosected under the Regulations of Railways Act but that's a different argument/point altogether)

Is there any evidence that the cost of fare evasion in Scotland is greater than in England & Wales?

For the most part, Scotland does things pretty well, especially in the Strathclyde area, where regular patrols of trains are made, and tickets are much more likely to be checked than in many parts of England (not just routes with only one member of staff, but also a lot of services near me, which have two staff on board, not just a driver, rarely see checks made).

Is the amount of money lost due to fare evasion in Scotland higher than in England & Wales?


Unfortunately the way the Byelaws are worded, a strict interpretation is that a ticket which is invalid for any reason, including those remedied by the NRCoT, could result in a conviction. My argument would be that the NRCoT has to be read in conjunction with the Byelaws, but it remains the case that some people have been treated as falling foul of the Byelaws due to a simple ticket restriction. I don't think the current system has sufficien safeguards in place to ensure that customers whose ticket is invalid due to a ticket restriction (such as a time or route restriction) are always treated as being entitled to an excess fare, rather than be prosecuted or faced with a Penalty Fare.

If you are on the wrong train company, you can be prosecuted. However it is not always clear which train company a train is operated by; not all screens will display this information and train companies such as Northern & TPE have been known to lease each other's trains and even staff. So you can't always tell by the livery of the train or even the uniform of the staff.

It's been reported on this forum that internal agreements have been made with certain companies that if a delay to a passenger would be 61 or more minutes, ticket acceptance is automatically in place, however this is not always respected by staff, who may deem a passengers' ticket as invalid and the customer could be threatened with prosecution. Are there sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that where staff make mistakes of this nature, a threat of prosecution would not proceeed?

Do you think the passenger involved in the Lumo incident should have been threatened with prosecution?

If your ticket is lost or stolen, you can be deemed guilty of a Byelaw offence, even if you could prove that you had purchased the ticket by presenting receipts and booking confirmation emails, and there does not have to be any suggestion that the customer was in any way attempting to avoid the fare for such a prosecution to proceed.


It isn't the same; can car insurances be excessed, can acceptance be in place between different operators, does car insurance have different routeing and time restriction options etc? You said earlier "the railway has no direct equivalent" and that statement is more correct than this one.


Absolutely yes, the legal system does need to be changed and the byelaws should not criminalise railway ticketing matters, at least not under the byelaws.

In the case documented at https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-and-invalid-tickets-opinions-please.245901/ the passenger was wrongly told to leave the train; had they not done so, they could have faced prosecution.

Are you suggesting that someone who travels on the wrong train company should not do a job that requires a clean record? I was on a train from Leeds to York and was chatting to someone who is a teacher who was found to be on a TOC specific ticket and was sold a new ticket. Should he have been prosecuted (as the law allows), and should he be struck off for that?

This case was prosecuted by FCC: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...itinerary-via-hatfield-fcc-prosecution.66439/ ; FCC lost he case

Here is another example: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/taken-to-court-facing-criminal-charges-advice-needed.156920/ ; the passenger was travelling from Manchester to Andover with a "via London ticket" and travelled via Reading (avoiding the double-back into Paddington) and instead of being issued a zero fare excess (or simply being accepted) , XC chose to prosecute.

The passenger felt they couldn't risk a prosecution, due to the nature of their job, so paid a four figure sum to a solitcitor who agreed with XC that the case would be dropped, but did not arrange for compensation for the passenger, who was left out of pocket.


I am glad we are agreed with me that most would agree that the train companies are engaging in wrongdoing

People have been threatened with prosecution when doing no such thing (or equivalent thing).

But this isn't the correct comparison. (Incidentally, if a passenger boards and alights at unstaffed stations with no facility to pay and no check is made on board, they aren't guilty of any offence, so the analogy doesn't quite work anyway)

These analogies are frought with issues; I don't agree with any of these analogies being appropriate or relevant.

A passenger who boards a train with a TOC specific ticket and travels on the wrong TOC can be given a Penalty Fare; as detailed earlier a train can be operated in the livery of a different TOC and the staff may even be empoyed by a different TOC.

In some instances of passengers being deemed as travelling without a valid ticket, the customer actually had a contractual entitlement to be re-routed and/or ticket acceptance was agreed by the relevant companies to be in place; as this can be a prosecutable offence, passengers in that situation have on occasion chosen to alight from trains at remote stations, at great inconvenience to them.

I'd be shocked if there wasn't any!

I am not saying those obligations don't exist, but should passengers be automatically guilty of a strict liability offence when doing so?

Also the definition of "correct train" is subject to interpretation when delays, cancellations and other disruptions occur; for example there have been recent instances of Northern/TPE staff refusing to allow each others customers on alternative services, and yet a member reports that an agreement between the companies to accept travel in the event of significant delays is in place.

I stand by what I posted earlier. A reminder that I said the following in respect of what you describe as a "misleading statement":

I then quoted the Chiltern Penalty Fare leaflet (note that Chiltern are not the only TOC to make this claim); if anyone wants to write to Chiltern to ask them to clarify their position, I'd be interested to hear it!

I am glad you agree that Penalty Fares are being issued to people who have no intention of avoiding the fare (in England & Wales). However I don't agree that the only realistic alternative, when a passenger has made a mistake of the sort described, but has not intended to avoid the fare, should be a prosecution. Neither of these options are available in Scotland and yet I doubt fare evasion is more rife there than in England & Wales; do you have any evieence that it is?

I don't think I've seen a better general summing up of these situations including the application of 19th century laws to 21st century activity, the most egregious being where a passenger can prove the purchase of a ticket by reference to a banking app etc even if the paper/electronic version is unavailable for whatever reason.

 

[43066]

OK that's one example of another area where this shouldn't happen. It's certainly not widespread.

You mean shouldn’t happen in your opinion. Prosecutions for strict liability offences involving TV licenses and speeding are common and take up a fair bit of courts’ time. So there are plenty of other examples of this happening, you just happen not to like them.

Prosecutions for railway ticketing offences are also not widespread and are a theoretical risk in all but the most serious of cases, or where people don’t engage with the system properly.

I am not sure what you are wanting to know exactly? As I've said the byelaws criminalise people who had no intention of wrongdoing; why would anyone be happy with that?

In which case you appear to be objecting to strict liability rather than railway prosecutions per se.

Can you give examples where customers have been prosecuted who had no intention of doing anything wrong?

Every time anyone has ever been prosecuted for any strict liability offence, as intention isn’t necessary.

And yet these laws are not used in Scotland; is there evidence of more harm occuring in Scotland than England & Wales?

Isn’t this whataboutery? I might as well ask whether there is evidence of more harm occurring in China or India? In any case, If penalty fares can’t be issued in Scotland, it follows they will be losing more revenue for any given level of fare evasion.

You are the one proposing to change the status quo, can you provide any evidence that your suggested approach will reduce this?

Who do you think should suffer the £250m loss incurred by the network? Should it be taxpayers or fare payers?

Doubtful as people generally aren't aware of the archaic byelaws and many people would assume it wouldn't happen to them or would have no realistic alternative but to travel.

You’ll find many laws in this country are “archaic”, and ignorance is no excuse. The vast majority of travellers are aware they some sanction will apply, even if they don’t know exactly what, and most are sensible and responsible enough to ensure they have the correct ticket.

The effects of mistreating customers is very difficult to measure.

“Customers” are not being “mistreated”. Passengers with invalid tickets are being dealt with accordingly - they are the kind of “customers” the railway could do without. If people like that are put off travelling by train, preferably permanently, so much the better!

I suggest your approach of applying no proper sanction to fare evasion because you don’t like railway bylaws is by far the more anti customer stance, because someone has to come up with the £250m annual shortfall.

I don't think the average person would agree that someone who has no intention of wrongdoing should be prosecuted.

I’m not sure anyone on this forum can claim to speak for the average person as we all have far more knowledge than the average rail passenger. In any case this is yet another objection to the concept of strict liability, not railway bylaws per se.

If anyone doesn’t agree with strict liability their options are really to accept the status quo, vote accordingly/lobby MPs to change the law, or leave the UK!

Is it widely reported elsewhere? It's certainly been the case that people who have been issued penalty fares or asked to pay out of court settlements when not intending to avoid payment of the fare have generated negative press stories. A classic example of this was a few years ago when numerous threads popped up on this forum, referrin to news items which involved passengers being charged for starting or finishing short. The comments sections of such publications would be very hostile to the rail industry.

It isn’t widely reported anywhere else because it isn’t regarded as an important issue anywhere other than here. Doesn’t that tell you something?

Have you read this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-related-to-rail-travel.243356/#post-6134156 where a non-recordable Byelaw offence became a big deal (in that case, the offence could have been prosected under the Regulations of Railways Act but that's a different argument/point altogether)

Yes I have read it. That case is dealing with police officers who have bunked their train fares and are being dealt with accordingly. It’s absolutely extraordinary that you’re apparently more affronted by these people being punished for (very intentional) fare evasion than you are by the fact that police officers have chosen to behave in this way in the first place - especially given the high profile cases of police misconduct in recent years, and the current highly damaging lack of trust in the police.

If these guys are bunking train fares then what else might they be doing? People who show a propensity for this kind of thing have absolutely no business wearing police uniforms.

Is there any evidence that the cost of fare evasion in Scotland is greater than in England & Wales?

This is whateboutary. Is there any evidence that repealing bylaws, as you have suggested, will reduce or increase losses to the railway?

For the most part, Scotland does things pretty well, especially in the Strathclyde area, where regular patrols of trains are made, and tickets are much more likely to be checked than in many parts of England (not just routes with only one member of staff, but also a lot of services near me, which have two staff on board, not just a driver, rarely see checks made).

As you well know *most* DOO trains are not like Strathclyde electrics and have hardly any checks. If DOO is rolled out further it will be done in a way that minimises operational costs - that is more likely to replicate Southeastern Metro and Thameslink than what happens in Scotland.

Is the amount of money lost due to fare evasion in Scotland higher than in England & Wales?

Is the money lost to fare evasion in China and India more than in England and Wales? It’s irrelevant.

You are the one proposing the bylaws are repealed in England and Wales, so surely you need to provide evidence that this will reduce the £250m annual loss to the railway.

Unfortunately the way the Byelaws are worded, a strict interpretation is that a ticket which is invalid for any reason, including those remedied by the NRCoT, could result in a conviction. My argument would be that the NRCoT has to be read in conjunction with the Byelaws, but it remains the case that some people have been treated as falling foul of the Byelaws due to a simple ticket restriction. I don't think the current system has sufficien safeguards in place to ensure that customers whose ticket is invalid due to a ticket restriction (such as a time or route restriction) are always treated as being entitled to an excess fare, rather than be prosecuted or faced with a Penalty Fare.

On what basis do you think NRCoT have to be read in conjunction with bylaws? One is a source of contractual terms incorporated into ticketing contracts, one is a series of statutes imposing strict liability criminal offence.

I disagree that the current system lacks sufficient safeguards. My evidence for that is that fare evasion is rife (people clearly do not cower in fear of railway prosecutions!), and the vast majority of offences are dealt with by way of discretion or penalty fare.
This forum suffers from Stockholm syndrome because of the disputes forum where the few fare evaders who are caught and dealt with flock to ask for advice, and perhaps because members have a penchant for pushing ticketing rules to breaking point.

The vast majority of passengers buy their correct ticket and travel from A to B with no issues. And there is certainly no widespread call for reform of fare evasion rules - it’s a concern that only exists on here.

If you are on the wrong train company, you can be prosecuted. However it is not always clear which train company a train is operated by; not all screens will display this information and train companies such as Northern & TPE have been known to lease each other's trains and even staff. So you can't always tell by the livery of the train or even the uniform of the staff.

Having spent many years travelling around the network, working on it, and even working Thameslink trains while working for another TOC, I refuse to believe this is a widespread issue - it’s another theoretical risk being grossly exaggerated to further an agenda.

What actually happens when people board the wrong train is that staff invariably go out of their way to help.

Can you point to an example of someone who has been prosecuted because they have boarded the wrong train, believing they were in a different TOCs train?

It's been reported on this forum that internal agreements have been made with certain companies that if a delay to a passenger would be 61 or more minutes, ticket acceptance is automatically in place, however this is not always respected by staff, who may deem a passengers' ticket as invalid and the customer could be threatened with prosecution. Are there sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that where staff make mistakes of this nature, a threat of prosecution would not proceeed?

Passengers are not privy to internal agreements, so how could they possibly be acting in reliance on them? If ticket acceptance is in place you will generally be told via a website, if not it’s best to be proactive and check.

Do you think the passenger involved in the Lumo incident should have been threatened with prosecution?

This was the passenger who ended up with BTP getting involved? I suspect there was more to that story. He was on the incorrect train so should have been given a penalty fare at least.

If your ticket is lost or stolen, you can be deemed guilty of a Byelaw offence, even if you could prove that you had purchased the ticket by presenting receipts and booking confirmation emails, and there does not have to be any suggestion that the customer was in any way attempting to avoid the fare for such a prosecution to proceed.

If someone loses a ticket it’s their responsibility. In any case this is one of the oldest tricks in the book: 99% of people who claim to have lost their ticket won’t have bought one in the first place.

As for a ticket being stolen leading to prosecution, this is again a theoretical risk. Can you provide an example of anyone who has actually been prosecuted for having their ticket stolen when they can evidence purchase?

It isn't the same; can car insurances be excessed, can acceptance be in place between different operators, does car insurance have different routeing and time restriction options etc? You said earlier "the railway has no direct equivalent" and that statement is more correct than this one.

I never suggested it was a direct equivalent, I was giving an example of why strict liability offences are in place. If I choose to drive a car, the onus is on me to ensure I’m correctly insured. If I choose to travel by rail, the onus is on me to produce a valid ticket when asked.

Absolutely yes, the legal system does need to be changed and the byelaws should not criminalise railway ticketing matters, at least not under the byelaws.

That’s only your view, others will disagree.

Is there any evidence that view this is held more widely? Can you point to any political campaigns to change the law? Are there any passenger groups which regard this as a problem?

In the case documented at https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-and-invalid-tickets-opinions-please.245901/ the passenger was wrongly told to leave the train; had they not done so, they could have faced prosecution.

This is an example of someone being on the wrong train in the first place - entirely their own fault - who was initially offered a penalty fare.

Are you suggesting that someone who travels on the wrong train company should not do a job that requires a clean record? I was on a train from Leeds to York and was chatting to someone who is a teacher who was found to be on a TOC specific ticket and was sold a new ticket. Should he have been prosecuted (as the law allows), and should he be struck off for that?

If that person is prosecuted and convicted, that would be a decision for the relevant professional body. If that body requires absolute integrity and honesty then perhaps they should, yes.

This case was prosecuted by FCC: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...itinerary-via-hatfield-fcc-prosecution.66439/ ; FCC lost he case

That case is from over a decade ago and, from the initial responses, clearly involves someone who had travelled beyond what their ticket allowed and was offered the chance to pay a penalty fare in the first instance.

Here is another example: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/taken-to-court-facing-criminal-charges-advice-needed.156920/ ; the passenger was travelling from Manchester to Andover with a "via London ticket" and travelled via Reading (avoiding the double-back into Paddington) and instead of being issued a zero fare excess (or simply being accepted) , XC chose to prosecute.

If he had a “via London” ticket, what was he doing travelling via Reading? I note he was also offered the chance to pay the correct fare and only prosecuted when he refused to engage.

So in summary, despite the huge number of cases in the disputes and prosecutions section, you have been unable to provide a single example of people actually being prosecuted for “innocent mistakes”. In all of these cases the passenger has done something wrong and then not paid a penalty fare or not engaged with the system. I’m not a bit surprised because I’ve asked that question several times, and never yet been given a good example.

I am glad we are agreed with me that most would agree that the train companies are engaging in wrongdoing

Why would anyone ever say otherwise?

People have been threatened with prosecution when doing no such thing (or equivalent thing).

For strict liability offences they will have been, but I was referring to the example you gave of someone who initially intended to pay but then changed their mind when the saw a ticket office queue.

But this isn't the correct comparison. (Incidentally, if a passenger boards and alights at unstaffed stations with no facility to pay and no check is made on board, they aren't guilty of any offence, so the analogy doesn't quite work anyway)

Yes it absolutely is the “correct comparison” in the example you gave earlier:

A passenger who finds a long queue at a station and fully intends to pay the fare and approaches staff immediately on boarding could still be given a Penalty Fare.

If I walk into a booking office, there is a means to pay, and I decide not to because of the queue I am committing an offence by intentionally not paying at the first opportunity. In just the same way as someone in a supermarket queue who decides to walk out without paying because the queue is too long commits an offence.

These analogies are frought with issues; I don't agree with any of these analogies being appropriate or relevant.

It’s clear that you won’t accept any analogy is relevant where it doesn’t accord with your view that the law needs to be changed. I think that’s what’s known as confirmation bias!

A passenger who boards a train with a TOC specific ticket and travels on the wrong TOC can be given a Penalty Fare; as detailed earlier a train can be operated in the livery of a different TOC and the staff may even be empoyed by a different TOC.

In some instances of passengers being deemed as travelling without a valid ticket, the customer actually had a contractual entitlement to be re-routed and/or ticket acceptance was agreed by the relevant companies to be in place; as this can be a prosecutable offence, passengers in that situation have on occasion chosen to alight from trains at remote stations, at great inconvenience to them.

I’m not quite clear what point is being made in the second paragraph. If someone boards a train when ticket acceptance is in place, or where they have permission, there is no offence committed.

What almost always happens in these situations is that someone who has chosen to buy a ticket for (say) a Lumo service gets to the station and decides they’ll jump onto an LNER service instead, hoping they won’t get noticed. Then when they do it’s all someone else’s fault.

I'd be shocked if there wasn't any!

So are there any examples?

I am not saying those obligations don't exist, but should passengers be automatically guilty of a strict liability offence when doing so?

Nobody is “automatically” guilty, they can only be found guilty if they are prosecuted.

The railway also doesn’t decide on guilt or innocence, that is a question for a magistrate court. Are you suggesting there’s something wrong with the UK courts system?

Also the definition of "correct train" is subject to interpretation when delays, cancellations and other disruptions occur; for example there have been recent instances of Northern/TPE staff refusing to allow each others customers on alternative services, and yet a member reports that an agreement between the companies to accept travel in the event of significant delays is in place.

If ticket acceptance is in place it will generally be communicated to staff. Staff are also perfectly entitled to refuse travel for reasons that go beyond ticket acceptance. I’m not sure what this has to do with strict liability bylaw offences?

The best approach in these situations is to (politely) ask and be proactive. If you board a train that isn’t the one your ticket is valid for, plonk yourself down, and then start arguing with the on train staff, this will more than likely lead to issues.

I stand by what I posted earlier. A reminder that I said the following in respect of what you describe as a "misleading statement":
I then quoted the Chiltern Penalty Fare leaflet (note that Chiltern are not the only TOC to make this claim); if anyone wants to write to Chiltern to ask them to clarify their position, I'd be interested to hear it!

Yes, your view of what penalty fares are for is (IMO) incorrect and directly contradicted by the guidance I quoted above. I have agreed with you that the Chiltern statement is misleading.

Which other TOCs make inaccurate claims about penalty fares? I agree they should be challenged and perhaps that would be a useful exercise for someone on here.

I am glad you agree that Penalty Fares are being issued to people who have no intention of avoiding the fare (in England & Wales).

Of course they are. That is an example of the law working as it should.

However I don't agree that the only realistic alternative, when a passenger has made a mistake of the sort described, but has not intended to avoid the fare, should be a prosecution. Neither of these options are available in Scotland and yet I doubt fare evasion is more rife there than in England & Wales; do you have any evieence that it is?

Whether it’s more rife or not, if they’re unable to issue penalty fares then logically they must be losing more revenue for any given amount of fare evasion.

As pointed out, can I see your evidence that your proposed changes will reduce losses to the railway?

I think in the end we will need to agree to disagree. You disagree with the law and want it changed, I want the existing law enforced more effectively. I haven’t seen any evidence that yours is anything other than a left field, niche viewpoint, which doesn’t appear to enjoy wider political support, or even support amongst passenger groups.

I don’t see any chance of the law being changed in the near future, or enforcement being improved, so I doubt either of us will get we want.

I don't think I've seen a better general summing up of these situations including the application of 19th century laws to 21st century activity, the most egregious being where a passenger can prove the purchase of a ticket by reference to a banking app etc even if the paper/electronic version is unavailable for whatever reason.

What’s your objection to 19th century laws applying today? If I don’t buy a train ticket I’ll be charged under railway bylaws, if I get into a fight in a pub and assault someone, I’ll be charged under the Offences Agains the Person Act, 1861.

The offences haven’t changed in the last hundred and fifty years, so neither has the law.

 

[yorkie]

You mean shouldn’t happen in your opinion. Prosecutions for strict liability offences involving TV licenses and speeding are common and take up a fair bit of courts’ time. So there are plenty of other examples of this happening, you just happen not to like them.

Prosecutions for railway ticketing offences are also not widespread and are a theoretical risk in all but the most serious of cases, or where people don’t engage with the system properly.



In which case you appear to be objecting to strict liability rather than railway prosecutions per se.



Every time anyone has ever been prosecuted for any strict liability offence, as intention isn’t necessary.



Isn’t this whataboutery? I might as well ask whether there is evidence of more harm occurring in China or India? In any case, If penalty fares can’t be issued in Scotland, it follows they will be losing more revenue for any given level of fare evasion.

You are the one proposing to change the status quo, can you provide any evidence that your suggested approach will reduce this?

Who do you think should suffer the £250m loss incurred by the network? Should it be taxpayers or fare payers?



You’ll find many laws in this country are “archaic”, and ignorance is no excuse. The vast majority of travellers are aware they some sanction will apply, even if they don’t know exactly what, and most are sensible and responsible enough to ensure they have the correct ticket.



“Customers” are not being “mistreated”. Passengers with invalid tickets are being dealt with accordingly - they are the kind of “customers” the railway could do without. If people like that are put off travelling by train, preferably permanently, so much the better!

I suggest your approach of applying no proper sanction to fare evasion because you don’t like railway bylaws is by far the more anti customer stance, because someone has to come up with the £250m annual shortfall.



I’m not sure anyone on this forum can claim to speak for the average person as we all have far more knowledge than the average rail passenger. In any case this is yet another objection to the concept of strict liability, not railway bylaws per se.

If anyone doesn’t agree with strict liability their options are really to accept the status quo, vote accordingly/lobby MPs to change the law, or leave the UK!



It isn’t widely reported anywhere else because it isn’t regarded as an important issue anywhere other than here. Doesn’t that tell you something?



Yes I have read it. That case is dealing with police officers who have bunked their train fares and are being dealt with accordingly. It’s absolutely extraordinary that you’re apparently more affronted by these people being punished for (very intentional) fare evasion than you are by the fact that police officers have chosen to behave in this way in the first place - especially given the high profile cases of police misconduct in recent years, and the current highly damaging lack of trust in the police.

If these guys are bunking train fares then what else might they be doing? People who show a propensity for this kind of thing have absolutely no business wearing police uniforms.



This is whateboutary. Is there any evidence that repealing bylaws, as you have suggested, will reduce or increase losses to the railway?



As you well know *most* DOO trains are not like Strathclyde electrics and have hardly any checks. If DOO is rolled out further it will be done in a way that minimises operational costs - that is more likely to replicate Southeastern Metro and Thameslink than what happens in Scotland.



Is the money lost to fare evasion in China and India more than in England and Wales? It’s irrelevant.

You are the one proposing the bylaws are repealed in England and Wales, so surely you need to provide evidence that this will reduce the £250m annual loss to the railway.



On what basis do you think NRCoT have to be read in conjunction with bylaws? One is a source of contractual terms incorporated into ticketing contracts, one is a series of statutes imposing strict liability criminal offence.

I disagree that the current system lacks sufficient safeguards. My evidence for that is that fare evasion is rife (people clearly do not cower in fear of railway prosecutions!), and the vast majority of offences are dealt with by way of discretion or penalty fare.
This forum suffers from Stockholm syndrome because of the disputes forum where the few fare evaders who are caught and dealt with flock to ask for advice, and perhaps because members have a penchant for pushing ticketing rules to breaking point.

The vast majority of passengers buy their correct ticket and travel from A to B with no issues. And there is certainly no widespread call for reform of fare evasion rules - it’s a concern that only exists on here.



Having spent many years travelling around the network, working on it, and even working Thameslink trains while working for another TOC, I refuse to believe this is a widespread issue - it’s another theoretical risk being grossly exaggerated to further an agenda.

What actually happens when people board the wrong train is that staff invariably go out of their way to help.

Can you point to an example of someone who has been prosecuted because they have boarded the wrong train, believing they were in a different TOCs train?




Passengers are not privy to internal agreements, so how could they possibly be acting in reliance on them? If ticket acceptance is in place you will generally be told via a website, if not it’s best to be proactive and check.



This was the passenger who ended up with BTP getting involved? I suspect there was more to that story. He was on the incorrect train so should have been given a penalty fare at least.



If someone loses a ticket it’s their responsibility. In any case this is one of the oldest tricks in the book: 99% of people who claim to have lost their ticket won’t have bought one in the first place.

As for a ticket being stolen leading to prosecution, this is again a theoretical risk. Can you provide an example of anyone who has actually been prosecuted for having their ticket stolen when they can evidence purchase?


I never suggested it was a direct equivalent, I was giving an example of why strict liability offences are in place. If I choose to drive a car, the onus is on me to ensure I’m correctly insured. If I choose to travel by rail, the onus is on me to produce a valid ticket when asked.



That’s only your view, others will disagree.

Is there any evidence that view this is held more widely? Can you point to any political campaigns to change the law? Are there any passenger groups which regard this as a problem?



This is an example of someone being on the wrong train in the first place - entirely their own fault - who was initially offered a penalty fare.



If that person is prosecuted and convicted, that would be a decision for the relevant professional body. If that body requires absolute integrity and honesty then perhaps they should, yes.



That case is from over a decade ago and, from the initial responses, clearly involves someone who had travelled beyond what their ticket allowed and was offered the chance to pay a penalty fare in the first instance.



If he had a “via London” ticket, what was he doing travelling via Reading? I note he was also offered the chance to pay the correct fare and only prosecuted when he refused to engage.

So in summary, despite the huge number of cases in the disputes and prosecutions section, you have been unable to provide a single example of people actually being prosecuted for “innocent mistakes”. In all of these cases the passenger has done something wrong and then not paid a penalty fare or not engaged with the system. I’m not a bit surprised because I’ve asked that question several times, and never yet been given a good example.



Why would anyone ever say otherwise?



For strict liability offences they will have been, but I was referring to the example you gave of someone who initially intended to pay but then changed their mind when the saw a ticket office queue.



Yes it absolutely is the “correct comparison” in the example you gave earlier:



If I walk into a booking office, there is a means to pay, and I decide not to because of the queue I am committing an offence by intentionally not paying at the first opportunity. In just the same way as someone in a supermarket queue who decides to walk out without paying because the queue is too long commits an offence.




It’s clear that you won’t accept any analogy is relevant where it doesn’t accord with your view that the law needs to be changed. I think that’s what’s known as confirmation bias!



I’m not quite clear what point is being made in the second paragraph. If someone boards a train when ticket acceptance is in place, or where they have permission, there is no offence committed.

What almost always happens in these situations is that someone who has chosen to buy a ticket for (say) a Lumo service gets to the station and decides they’ll jump onto an LNER service instead, hoping they won’t get noticed. Then when they do it’s all someone else’s fault.



So are there any examples?



Nobody is “automatically” guilty, they can only be found guilty if they are prosecuted.

The railway also doesn’t decide on guilt or innocence, that is a question for a magistrate court. Are you suggesting there’s something wrong with the UK courts system?



If ticket acceptance is in place it will generally be communicated to staff. Staff are also perfectly entitled to refuse travel for reasons that go beyond ticket acceptance. I’m not sure what this has to do with strict liability bylaw offences?

The best approach in these situations is to (politely) ask and be proactive. If you board a train that isn’t the one your ticket is valid for, plonk yourself down, and then start arguing with the on train staff, this will more than likely lead to issues.



Yes, your view of what penalty fares are for is (IMO) incorrect and directly contradicted by the guidance I quoted above. I have agreed with you that the Chiltern statement is misleading.

Which other TOCs make inaccurate claims about penalty fares? I agree they should be challenged and perhaps that would be a useful exercise for someone on here.



Of course they are. That is an example of the law working as it should.



Whether it’s more rife or not, if they’re unable to issue penalty fares then logically they must be losing more revenue for any given amount of fare evasion.

As pointed out, can I see your evidence that your proposed changes will reduce losses to the railway?

I think in the end we will need to agree to disagree. You disagree with the law and want it changed, I want the existing law enforced more effectively. I haven’t seen any evidence that yours is anything other than a left field, niche viewpoint, which doesn’t appear to enjoy wider political support, or even support amongst passenger groups.

I don’t see any chance of the law being changed in the near future, or enforcement being improved, so I doubt either of us will get we want.





What’s your objection to 19th century laws applying today? If I don’t buy a train ticket I’ll be charged under railway bylaws, if I get into a fight in a pub and assault someone, I’ll be charged under the Offences Agains the Person Act, 1861.

The offences haven’t changed in the last hundred and fifty years, so neither has the law.

Have you not read my post? I gave examples of people who were threatened with prosecution who did nothing wrong; to suggest this is only "a theoretical risk in all but the most serious of cases, or where people don’t engage with the system properly" is demonstrably false.

So yes, I agree with the part of your post that states we will need to agree to disagree!

 

[Turtle]

You mean shouldn’t happen in your opinion.
Prosecutions for strict liability offences involving TV licenses and speeding are common and take up a fair bit of courts’ time. So there are plenty of other examples of this happening, you just happen not to like them.

Prosecutions for railway ticketing offences are also not widespread and are a theoretical risk in all but the most serious of cases, or where people don’t engage with the system properly.



In which case you appear to be objecting to strict liability rather than railway prosecutions per se.



Every time anyone has ever been prosecuted for any strict liability offence, as intention isn’t necessary.



Isn’t this whataboutery? I might as well ask whether there is evidence of more harm occurring in China or India? In any case, If penalty fares can’t be issued in Scotland, it follows they will be losing more revenue for any given level of fare evasion.

You are the one proposing to change the status quo, can you provide any evidence that your suggested approach will reduce this?
Who do you think should suffer the £250m loss incurred by the network? Should it be taxpayers or fare payers?



You’ll find many laws in this country are “archaic”, and ignorance is no excuse. The vast majority of travellers are aware they some sanction will apply, even if they don’t know exactly what, and most are sensible and responsible enough to ensure they have the correct ticket.


“Customers” are not being “mistreated”. Passengers with invalid tickets are being dealt with accordingly - they are the kind of “customers” the railway could do without. If people like that are put off travelling by train, preferably permanently, so much the better!

I suggest your approach of tolerating fare evasion because you don’t like railway bylaws is by far the more anti customer stance, because someone has to come up with the £250m annual shortfall.



I’m not sure anyone on this forum can claim to speak for the average person as we all have far more knowledge than the average rail passenger. In any case this is yet another objection to the concept of strict liability, not railway bylaws per se.

If anyone doesn’t agree with strict liability their options are really to accept the status quo, vote accordingly/lobby MPs to change the law, or leave the UK!



It isn’t widely reported anywhere else because it isn’t regarded as an important issue anywhere other than here. Doesn’t that tell you something?



Yes I have read it. That case is dealing with police officers who have bunked their train fares and are being dealt with accordingly. It’s absolutely extraordinary that you’re apparently more affronted by these people being punished for (very intentional) fare evasion than you are by the fact that police officers have chosen to behave in this way in the first place - especially given the high profile cases of police misconduct in recent years, and the current highly damaging lack of trust in the police.

If these guys are bunking train fares then what else might they be doing? People who show a propensity for this kind of thing have absolutely no business wearing police uniforms.



This is whateboutary. Is there any evidence that repealing bylaws, as you have suggested, will reduce or increase losses to the railway?



As you well know *most* DOO trains are not like Strathclyde electrics and have hardly any checks. If DOO is rolled out further it will be done in a way that minimises operational costs - that is more likely to replicate Southeastern Metro and Thameslink than what happens in Scotland.



Is the money lost to fare evasion in China and India more than in England and Wales? It’s irrelevant.

You are the one proposing the bylaws are repealed in England and Wales, so surely you need to provide evidence that this will reduce the £250m annual loss to the railway.



On what basis do you think NRCoT have to be read in conjunction with bylaws? One is a source of contractual terms incorporated into ticketing contracts, one is a series of statutes imposing strict liability criminal offence.

I disagree that the current system lacks sufficient safeguards. My evidence for that is that fare evasion is rife (people clearly do not cower in fear of railway prosecutions!), and the vast majority of offences are dealt with by way of discretion or penalty fare.
This forum suffers from Stockholm syndrome because of the disputes forum where the few fare evaders who are caught and dealt with flock to ask for advice, and perhaps because members have a penchant for pushing ticketing rules to breaking point.

The vast majority of passengers buy their correct ticket and travel from A to B with no issues. And there is certainly no widespread call for reform of fare evasion rules - it’s a concern that only exists on here.



Having spent many years travelling around the network, working on it, and even working Thameslink trains while working for another TOC, I refuse to believe this is a widespread issue - it’s another theoretical risk being grossly exaggerated to further an agenda.

What actually happens when people board the wrong train is that staff invariably go out of their way to help.

Can you point to an example of someone who has been prosecuted because they have boarded the wrong train, believing they were in a different TOCs train?




Passengers are not privy to internal agreements, so how could they possibly be acting in reliance on them? If ticket acceptance is in place you will generally be told via a website, if not it’s best to be proactive and check.



This was the passenger who ended up with BTP getting involved? I suspect there was more to that story. He was on the incorrect train so should have been given a penalty fare at least.



If someone loses a ticket it’s their responsibility. In any case this is one of the oldest tricks in the book: 99% of people who claim to have lost their ticket won’t have bought one in the first place.

As for a ticket being stolen leading to prosecution, this is again a theoretical risk. Can you provide an example of anyone who has actually been prosecuted for having their ticket stolen when they can evidence purchase?


I never suggested it was a direct equivalent, I was giving an example of why strict liability offences are in place. If I choose to drive a car, the onus is on me to ensure I’m correctly insured. If I choose to travel by rail, the onus is on me to produce a valid ticket when asked.



That’s only your view, others will disagree.

Is there any evidence that view this is held more widely? Can you point to any political campaigns to change the law? Are there any passenger groups which regard this as a problem?



This is an example of someone being on the wrong train in the first place - entirely their own fault - who was initially offered a penalty fare.



If that person is prosecuted and convicted, that would be a decision for the relevant professional body. If that body requires absolute integrity and honesty then perhaps they should, yes.



That case is from over a decade ago and, from the initial responses, clearly involves someone who had travelled beyond what their ticket allowed and was offered the chance to pay a penalty fare in the first instance.



If he had a “via London” ticket, what was he doing travelling via Reading? I note he was also offered the chance to pay the correct fare and only prosecuted when he refused to engage.

So in summary, despite the huge number of cases in the disputes and prosecutions section, you have been unable to provide a single example of people actually being prosecuted for “innocent mistakes”. In all of these cases the passenger has done something wrong and then not paid a penalty fare or not engaged with the system.



Why would anyone ever say otherwise?



For strict liability offences they will have been, but I was referring to the example you gave of someone who initially intended to pay but then changed their mind when the saw a ticket office queue.



Yes it absolutely is the “correct comparison” in the example you gave earlier:



If I walk into a booking office, there is a means to pay, and I decide not to because of the queue I am committing an offence by intentionally not paying at the first opportunity. In just the same way as someone in a supermarket queue who decides to walk out without paying because the queue is too long commits an offence.




It’s clear that you won’t accept any analogy is relevant where it doesn’t accord with your view that the law needs to be changed. I think that’s what’s known as confirmation bias!



I’m not quite clear what point is being made in the second paragraph. If someone boards a train when ticket acceptance is in place, or where they have permission, there is no offence committed.

What almost always happens in these situations is that someone who has chosen to buy a ticket for (say) a Lumo service gets to the station and decides they’ll jump onto an LNER service instead, hoping they won’t get noticed. Then when they do it’s all someone else’s fault.



So are there any examples?



Nobody is “automatically” guilty, they can only be found guilty if they are prosecuted.

The railway also doesn’t decide on guilt or innocence, that is a question for a magistrate court. Are you suggesting there’s something wrong with the UK courts system?



If ticket acceptance is in place it will generally be communicated to staff. Staff are also perfectly entitled to refuse travel for reasons that go beyond ticket acceptance. I’m not sure what this has to do with strict liability bylaw offences?

The best approach in these situations is to (politely) ask and be proactive. If you board a train that isn’t the one your ticket is valid for, plonk yourself down, and then start arguing with the on train staff, this will more than likely lead to issues.



Yes, your view of what penalty fares are for is (IMO) incorrect and directly contradicted by the guidance I quoted above. I have agreed with you that the Chiltern statement is misleading.

Which other TOCs make inaccurate claims about penalty fares? I agree they should be challenged and perhaps that would be a useful exercise for someone on here.



Of course they are. That is an example of the law working as it should.



Whether it’s more rife or not, if they’re unable to issue penalty fares then logically they must be losing more revenue for any given amount of fare evasion.

As pointed out, can I see your evidence that your proposed changes will reduce losses to the railway?

I think in the end we will need to agree to disagree. You disagree with the law and want it changed, I want the existing law enforced more effectively. I haven’t seen any evidence that yours is anything other than a left field, niche viewpoint, which doesn’t appear to enjoy wider political support, or even support amongst passenger groups.

I don’t see any chance of the law being changed in the near future, or enforcement being improved, so I doubt either of us will get we want.





What’s your objection to 19th century laws applying today? If I don’t buy a train ticket I’ll be charged under railway bylaws, if I get into a fight in a pub and assault someone, I’ll be charged under the Offences Agains the Person Act, 1861.

The offences haven’t changed in the last hundred and fifty years, so neither has the law.

I don't object to 19th century laws or, indeed, those of any century where relevant. My point is simply that laws created to deal with 19th century material transactions should not be blindly applied to 21st century virtual activity where electronic records can, when accessed subsequently, indicate zero pecuniary loss to the railway.

 

[43066]

Have you not read my post? I gave examples of people who were threatened with prosecution who did nothing wrong; to suggest this is only "a theoretical risk in all but the most serious of cases, or where people don’t engage with the system properly" is demonstrably false.

Have you not seen where I answered it in detail!?

As I noted, there are no examples in your post of people being prosecuted for “doing nothing wrong” and I have explained exactly why that is the case. There are no examples for you to give because it basically never happens!

I know how few of these cases get prosecuted because I see railway enforcement taking place, I speak to the people who are involved with it on an almost daily basis, and the enormous costs to the industry are publicly available.

So yes, I agree with the party of your post that states we will need to agree to disagree!

Yes, and that’s fine. It isn’t the first time we have disagreed on these matters, and I doubt it will be the last. I don’t see any sign of the law changing, as you would like, so what is there really to discuss?

I don't object to 19th century laws or, indeed, those of any century where relevant. My point is simply that laws created to deal with 19th century material transactions should not be blindly applied to 21st century virtual activity where electronic records can, when accessed subsequently, indicate zero pecuniary loss to the railway.

They aren’t blindly applied. If you can show evidence you bought a ticket you’re highly unlikely to be prosecuted. If you buy an e-ticket and your phone has died so you can’t show it when required (yeah right!), that’s your own fault, so you should expect to be penalty fared.

Pecuniary loss is irrelevant to criminal law, which exists to punish wrong doing and to provide a deterrent. As above, fare evasion costs us all around £250m per year, which suggests the law isn’t doing a good job at the moment.

 

[yorkie]

Have you not seen where I answered it in detail!?

As I noted, there are no examples in your post of people being prosecuted for “doing nothing wrong” and I have explained exactly why that is the case. There are no examples for you to give because it basically never happens!

I know how few of these cases get prosecuted because I see railway enforcement taking place, I speak to the people who are involved with it on an almost daily basis, and the enormous costs to the industry are publicly available.



Yes, and that’s fine. It isn’t the first time we have disagreed on these matters, and I doubt it will be the last. I don’t see any sign of the law changing, as you would like, so what is there really to discuss?



They aren’t blindly applied. If you can show evidence you bought a ticket you’re highly unlikely to be prosecuted. If you buy an e-ticket and your phone has died so you can’t show it when required (yeah right!), that’s your own fault, so you should expect to be penalty fared.

Pecuniary loss is irrelevant to criminal law, which exists to punish wrong doing and to provide a deterrent. As above, fare evasion costs us all around £250m per year, which suggests the law isn’t doing a good job at the moment.

Just to clarify, you are happy for fare paying customers, who have done nothing wrong, to be out of pocket by over a thousand pounds, because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that they can't risk the matter going to court?

And because they settle out of court, this doesn't count as a prosecution, and therefore it's okay, is that right?

 

[Turtle]

Have you not seen where I answered it in detail!?

As I noted, there are no examples in your post of people being prosecuted for “doing nothing wrong” and I have explained exactly why that is the case. There are no examples for you to give because it basically never happens!

I know how few of these cases get prosecuted because I see railway enforcement taking place, I speak to the people who are involved with it on an almost daily basis, and the enormous costs to the industry are publicly available.



Yes, and that’s fine. It isn’t the first time we have disagreed on these matters, and I doubt it will be the last. I don’t see any sign of the law changing, as you would like, so what is there really to discuss?



They aren’t blindly applied. If you can show evidence you bought a ticket you’re highly unlikely to be prosecuted. If you buy an e-ticket and your phone has died so you can’t show it when required (yeah right!), that’s your own fault, so you should expect to be penalty fared.

Pecuniary loss is irrelevant to criminal law, which exists to punish wrong doing and to provide a deterrent. As above, fare evasion costs us all around £250m per year, which suggests the law isn’t doing a good job at the moment.

I note your remark regarding pecuniary loss but I am sure you must also be aware of the concept of equity in law. It's clearly inequitable to prosecute an individual in such circumstances and discretion should and must be exercised. If not we are venturing into the realm of legalised extortion.

 

[43066]

Just to clarify, you are happy for fare paying customers, who have done nothing wrong, to be out of pocket by over a thousand pounds, because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that they can't risk the matter going to court?

This is a straw man because - in almost all cases - we aren’t taking about people who have done “nothing wrong” in the eyes of the law. You are not the arbiter of what is right and wrong, and whether you agree with the law is completely and utterly irrelevant.

You have also suggested, or at least implied, that you are happy for police officers to indulge in fare evasion and receive no sanction, so I’m very pleased you don’t make the rules!

I note your remark regarding pecuniary loss but I am sure you must also be aware of the concept of equity in law. It's clearly inequitable to prosecute an individual in such circumstances and discretion should and must be exercised.

Equity generally isn’t a criminal law concept and has no application to this situation that I can see. The law is clear and unambiguous. Discretion is already exercised in many situations but, by definition, doesn’t have to be exercised.

Describing the situation as “legal extortion” is hyperbolic and ignores the fact that fare evasion costs the railway a huge amount of money; nobody is profiteering here, other than the fare evaders! The more of this loss that can be recouped through penalty fares, the better. If people don’t wish to pay they can go to court and mount a defence. Of course in the overwhelming majority of cases they choose not to do this, because they know they’re as guilty as sin!

 

[yorkie]

This is a straw man because - in almost all cases - we aren’t taking about people who have done “nothing wrong” in the eyes of the law

It's not a straw man; I gave real examples and have not made anything up.

When you say "in almost all cases", is this an admission that in some cases the rail industry does prosecute people who have done nothing wrong, and that you are okay with this?

. You are not the arbiter of what is right and wrong, and whether you agree with the law is completely and utterly irrelevant.

I've got just as much right to my opinion as you or anyone else.

You have also suggested, or at least implied, that you are happy for police officers to indulge in fare evasion and receive no sanction, so I’m very pleased you don’t make the rules!

Where did I say that? Can you please quote exactly what I have said and how you disagree with it?

 

[43066]

It's not a straw man; I gave real examples and have not made anything up.

In almost every case the people prosecuted have broken the law so haven’t done “nothing wrong”. I’m not sure how I can make that any clearer.

When you say "in almost all cases", is this an admission that in some cases the rail industry does prosecute people who have done nothing wrong, and that you are okay with this?

I’m sure mistakes happen (not that there are any examples of such on this thread), but no system is perfect, and the same could be said of the criminal justice system as a whole. Is that an argument for disbanding it, then?

Where did I say that? Can you please quote exactly what I have said and how you disagree with it?

The fact you brought up the thread discussing misconduct by police officers in this discussion in the first place. On that thread you appear more concerned about the use of a bylaw offence than about their behaviour in the first place.

 

[yorkie]

In almost every case the people prosecuted have broken the law so haven’t done “nothing wrong”. I’m not sure how I can make that any clearer.



I’m sure mistakes happen (not that there are any examples of such on this thread), but no system is perfect, and the same could be said of the criminal justice system as a whole. Is that an argument for disbanding it, then?

You haven't addressed the points I made; you say "mistakes happen" but your view appears to be that it's fine for mistakes by passengers to result in passengers being prosecuted but mistakes by train companies are acceptable; is that right or have I misunderstood?

The fact you brought up the thread discussing misconduct by police officers in this discussion in the first place. On that thread you appear more concerned about the use of a bylaw offence than about their behaviour in the first place.

I didn't bring up police officers; the post I linked to was regarding a doctor; nothing you say here relates to the point I was making.

 

[43066]

You haven't addressed the points I made; you say "mistakes happen" but your view appears to be that it's fine for mistakes by passengers to result in passengers being prosecuted but mistakes by train companies are acceptable; is that right or have I misunderstood?

Yes I have. You’ve said you object to people being prosecuted for “doing nothing wrong” I’ve patiently explained that breaking the law doesn’t equate to “doing nothing wrong”, just because you happen to disagree with said law.

If passengers break the law they can indeed be prosecuted, but prosecution only happens in a minority of cases. There are no examples of mistakes leading to prosecutions which is no surprise because prosecution only happens in the most serious cases, or where passengers refuse to engage with the process. In almost all cases mistakes will lead to penalty fares, or being asked to pay a full fare. Are you denying that’s the case?

Do you think the fact that occasional miscarriages of justice happen mean that we should disband the entire criminal justice system? That appears to be the argument you’re making in relation to railway prosecutions

Where have I said mistakes by train companies are acceptable (another straw man)?

I didn't bring up police officers; the post I linked to was regarding a doctor; nothing you say here relates to the point I was making.

You linked to a thread discussing police officers.

I’m also still waiting for @yorkie to provide some evidence that railway prosecutions are of concern to many people anywhere outside of this forum. Are there any politicians proposing to change the law in this area, for example?

 

[LondonExile]

Personally - I'd advocate repealing Byelaws 17 & 18, and add the word "dishonestly" into the definition of the crime outlined within RoRA 5(3).

Diversion of many or most criminal prosecutions towards civil penalties (e.g. penalty fares) is a good thing in my mind, both for the passenger, and the railway, as the TOC will be entitled to the payment, not the courts.

This would still leave RoRA and the Fraud Act for serious offences, e.g. doughnutting or manufacture of counterfeit tickets etc., which also then has the benefit that egregiously dishonest behaviour is marked out as such, so you don't get people caught doughnutting and people who misplaced a railcard lumped into the same category when prosecuted (e.g. both convicted of a Byelaw offence.)

 

[yorkie]

Yes I have. You’ve said you object to people being prosecuted for “doing nothing wrong” I’ve patiently explained that breaking the law doesn’t equate to “doing nothing wrong”, just because you happen to disagree with said law.

But a strict liability prosecution means there can be absolutely no intent to evade the fare for a prosecution to proceed

I have given examples where a passenger did indeed do nothing wrong but where the train company still threatened them with prosecution

A passenger should only be deemed to have broken the law if they have done something wrong and I would argue they should have intended to avoid the fare before being deem d to have broken the law.

Clearly you have a different view to me on this; I have provided many examples to demonstrate my point but clearly you disagree with them. So where do we go from here? Simply repeat our disagreements?

If passengers break the law they can indeed be prosecuted, but prosecution only happens in a minority of ccases

Yes you have said this before, but I don't think that it is acceptable for people who have no intent to avoid the fare to be prosecuted, even if it only happens in a minority of cases.

No-one is suggesting the majority of passengers are prosecuted so I don't know why you keep repeating this line.

There are no examples of mistakes leading to prosecutions

Yes there are; see my earlier posts, such as the ones regarding XC and FCC being particularly good examples where the passenger didn't make a mistake but the train companies did!

There are also examples of where a passenger makes an honest mistake or a misunderstanding occurs where a passenger is threatened with prosecution.

Either way, when there is no intent to do anything wrong, I don't believe any threat of prosecution is appropriate. We can continue to disagree with each other indefinitely if you want, but I am not changing my opinion on the matter.

which is no surprise because prosecution only happens in the most serious cases, or where passengers refuse to engage with the process. In almost all cases mistakes will lead to penalty fares, or being asked to pay a full fare. Are you denying that’s the case?

Let's take the XC and FCC cases specifically; are you somehow blaming the victims for the way they were treated

Regardless of how the 'majority' of cases are dealt with, the issue fundamentally is that many of us don't believe that TOCs should be able to bring about a private prosecution with no requirement to demonstrate any intent on the part of the passenger to do anything wrong. Clearly you do believe they should have these powers, but nothing you have said is making any of us change our minds.

Do you think the fact that occasional miscarriages of justice happen mean that we should disband the entire criminal justice system? That appears to be the argument you’re making in relation to railway prosecutions

You are the one who accuses me (erroneously) of making a 'straw man argument ' but based on my reading of the definition, your question above meets that definition.

Where have I said mistakes by train companies are acceptable (another straw man)?

I gave examples and you dismissed them, saying:

..So in summary, despite the huge number of cases in the disputes and prosecutions section, you have been unable to provide a single example of people actually being prosecuted for “innocent mistakes”.

Whether or not you agree these were "mistakes" (on the part of the train companies, no less!), the terminology is immaterial; my point stands that the customers in all cases didn't do anything wrong, had no intention to avoid payment of the fare, but your response appears to be that the behaviour of the train companies is acceptable and the ability of train companies to prosecute people for such matters is acceptable.

I am not interested in getting into an argument over semantics; it is the actual issues here which matter and the point is that you appear to dismiss what happened in those examples as acceptable while I don't think it is acceptable.

So I propose we agree to disagree on the acceptability of this behaviour, rather than simply repeat ourselves?

You linked to a thread discussing police officers.

I provided a direct link to the post to which I was referring to; the case relates to a matter where a doctor was stuck off due to a strict liability Byelaw offence, and incidentally the TOC arguably should have used RoRA instead.

I’m also still waiting for @yorkie to provide some evidence that railway prosecutions are of concern to many people anywhere outside of this forum. Are there any politicians proposing to change the law in this area, for example?

I already answered that above; most people have absolutely no idea that they could be threatened with prosecution without having any intent to do anything wrong. It's clearly not sufficiently widespread to result in politicians proposing to change the law in this area.

If the argument is that it only affects a minority of people that makes it acceptable, then we are going to have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[island]

I would agree that the current state of play with respect to prosecutions is suboptimal.

Prosecution should absolutely be there for people clearly/dishonestly attempting to avoid paying.

That is different to the Byelaw strict liability offences. Mistakes are what the Penalty Fare system is there to deal with. Notably, Railway Byelaw 17 (1) around compulsory ticket areas does not allow prosecution, the only punishment for breaking it is being chucked out of the station. The TfL Byelaws are different, and they almost exclusively prosecute people under that Byelaw because it’s simple.

Out of court settlements have their place but there is increasing evidence they are being used so that the railway can exact higher charges and take a bigger “piece of the pie” by dangling a career-damaging criminal record in front of people. (Even though the effect on a career is far less in most cases than many people seem to make out.)

A system which works a lot better for consumers is the Financial Ombudsman Service. This is quite quick to impose compensatory payments in the low three figures for “trouble and upset” when financial providers screw up. After a certain number of cases per year, the financial provider is also billed £750 administrative fees per case by the FOS for failing to settle cases satisfactorily. This may be too consumer-friendly but I strongly suspect such a system would quickly soften the railway’s cough.

Saying “people should be punished for breaking the law because it’s breaking the law” is circular logic. The suggestion is the law should be changed and that is the debate that people should engage with.

 

[crablab]

I agree with the view that many in the Disputes section are extremely scared of (in the grand scheme of things) low level criminal prosecution. I don't think that's unreasonable given the greater emphasis in modern society on DBS checks and disclosure of unspent (and in some cases, spent) criminal convictions.

My concern is around the difference in outcome, depending on which TOC you encounter. For instance GWR are apparently more willing to settle than, for example, Northern. So committing a similar offence in different parts of England & Wales can lead to a different outcome depending on which private company catches you. That doesn't seem especially fair, and justice should be fairly applied.

The TOCs are incentivised to recover as much revenue as possible. It is therefore in their interest to use the Bylaw offence as a lever to encourage compliance and elicit settlements, or where that isn't possible a court imposed fine.

My worry would be, given:
- people are scared of receiving a criminal record
- TOCs are incentivised to recover revenue
- the Bylaw offence is 'easy' to prove

there may be insufficient challenge in the process to avoid Bylaw offences being used as a method to extract maximum settlements from people who have committed very minor or questionable breaches, but who are unwilling to challenge or negotiate as the threat of a criminal record is potentially very damaging. When the TOC is both the prosecuting authority _and_ the body that gains from any settlement or fine imposed that imparts a significant responsibility on the TOC.

Given the growth of eTickets in recent years and the focus on scans and online ticket purchasing data being used as the basis for investigation irregularities and forming allegations, it is much easier for desk based statistical analysis to identify large numbers of people who the TOCs believe may have committed an offence.
One would hope we don't end up with a situation similar to the Post Office, where prosecutions are found to have been brought (or settlements extracted) on the basis of data that was misunderstood or by assertion that specific types of behaviour "must" be fare evasion, when in fact the TOC failed to discharge a sufficient burden of evidence and people were too scared to challenge them. (I am not implying that _is_ happening, but it is a very similar situation to that which the Post Office found itself in - being able to prosecute or threaten prosecution to extract settlements it felt were due).