Passenger Focus - "Dont treat us like criminals"

[andydd]

I've become a bit concerned recently over recent posts where the person involved has run into problems whilst travelling by train has been issued a penalty fare or advised they risk prosecution.

 

In one in particular the OP was not happy with the advice he received, he ignored this and got the outcome he desired thanks to Passenger Focus.

 

I note that Passenger Focus have today published a report (a follow up to their 2012 report) which discusses then same issues that concerned me, mainly that the current laws are not being implemented fairly or consistently, in particular that the current byelaws are sometimes implemented in such a way that legitimate fare paying commuters have received or risked being giving criminal convictions through a simple mistake such as losing a ticket.

 

To take a quote "Sometimes action taken by the train company simply did not look like fair play, or

feel like common sense. For example, someone who lost one of their tickets but had

proof of purchase could still be penalised as if they had no ticket, as could those who

could prove they had a valid railcard but who did not have it with them when

travelling. To many law-abiding passengers it just did not (and still does not) seem

logical.................. ....This ‘strict liability’ creates a net that draws in the passenger who has made an

honest mistake at the same time as catching the intentional fare dodger. What we

found missing was an effective mechanism that filtered out the innocent mistake."

 

I know we have some very knowledgeable members on the forum but alas the advice they give whilst no doubt is legally accurate sometimes appears somewhat 'hard' and unhelpful, this is no doubt due to a strict reading of the byelaws and the fact that even if it is quite clear that the commuter was not trying to evade a fare (and can clearly prove this), they could in theory be prosecuted. (It is the unfairness and inconsistency of this in particular that the Passenger Focus deals with).

 

I've also attached a story from my local paper concerning my local station where it is now impossible to buy a ticket yet if the story is to be believed commuters have still been threatened with a penalty fare/risk of prosecution.

 

I'd recommend if anyone has similar problems they contact Passenger Focus, I found them very helpful, as did another poster on here.

 

Passenger Focus Summary of Report here > http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/new...assengers-plea

 

Full Report here > http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/res...ride-an-update

 

 

This what the report says about non-payment of a penalty fare and subsequent threatening of prosecution (which others have mentioned as being a grey area)

 

"Non-payment of a penalty fare should not be transmuted into a criminal prosecution.

debt collection is usually a civil action and yet we have received cases where the

‘railway’ uses threats of criminal law (including imprisonment) to ‘encourage’

payment of a debt.

We do not think that strict liability should be used to chase debts. If there were any

indication of deliberate wrongdoing then the prosecution option should have been

used from the outset."

 

Now clearly this has no legal clout but I wonder if these views could be used.

 

[Conniff]

Sorry, but those are the rules

Rules deliberately added to extort extra money on top of the already rip-off price of a ticket.

[Nystagmite]

Rules deliberately added to extort extra money on top of the already rip-off price of a ticket.

 

How?

[Conniff]

Because they could have asked that he bring in his ID card and maybe some other identity, checked it and sent him on his way.

 

 

The same as the police do when they give you a producer.

[Ethel Street]

Because they could have asked that he bring in his ID card and maybe some other identity, checked it and sent him on his way.

 

 

The same as the police do when they give you a producer.

 

That's not really the appropriate comparator though. It pretty much every context where you are getting a reduced/concessionary price for something you have to have the proof of entitlement with you at the time you buy/use the service. You can't just take it along later. If I get a concessionary theatre ticket for over 60s I hve to show evidence of age when I turn up at the theatre, if I buy a rail ticket with a rail card I have to carry the rail card with me, if I've got a voucher for a reduced price restaurant meal I hve to have to have the voucher with me when I eat. I can't use any of those services cheaply without proof of entilement and just promise to come by some other time with my documents. Why should buses be any different?

 

Rules deliberately added to extort extra money on top of the already rip-off price of a ticket.

 

OK, I know what's a rip off price to one person is good value to another, it's a subjective thing, but even so how can the London bus fare with unemployed discount card of 75p for any distance be called a rip-off? Compared to what? And on buses that generally speaking in London are frequent and reliable - well certainly compared to most places outside London they are.

[timbo58]

Have to say if the rules are there to 'deliberately extort' then someone, somewhere would have successfully challenged them by now.

Most of these 'rules' are covered by bylaws up to 126 years old don't forget., they have been 'tried and tested' as the phrase goes , many, many times by people both more determined, more stupid and more clever than most here.

 

Administrative penalties rarely make a profit, let alone are the 'huge extortion racket' you obviously think.

It costs a small fortune to run a RP department, having run one myself I can vouch for that.

 

If all you can say to most posts is 'it's a rip off' /cry 'crime' when it isn't one and you know it, you really aren't helping, your opinion is already ever so well known surely?

 

The OP asked if it was fair, I replied it was according to the rules they agreed, sorry if this doesn't match your ideal world scenario.

[Conniff]

Most of these 'rules' are covered by bylaws up to 126 years old...

 

 

Yea, they haven't changed, they know when they are on to a good thing.

 

 

The OP asked if it was fair, I replied it was according to the rules they agreed, sorry if this doesn't match your ideal world scenario.

 

 

So you have never accidently done something that you are supposed to. This is a cash cow and we all know it.

[timbo58]

Yes, I have indeed done something I shouldn't have done- and I paid the fine, despite believing it to be unfair as I had no choice, an offence against the RTA fwiw, although that's not relevant anyway.

 

The laws in question on this thread have been there for 126+ years simply because they are as watertight as a law can be.

[rambo]

T+C's of discounted oyster state that it MUST be accompanied by the valid ID.

OP was wrong, got caught, got a penalty fare- all legal.

[king12345]

Did you appeal to the penalty fare?

If you sent them proof of your discount entitlement they might cancel the PF as a gesture of goodwill.

Even if you already paid it doesn't hurt to try.

[Stigy]

 

So you have never accidently done something that you are supposed to. This is a cash cow and we all know it.

 

Whole idea of a Penalty Fare. They're for honest mistakes. If the Inspector thought the OP intended to evade their fare, he'd probably have been reported for summons.

 

What's to say the accompanying document existed? Or wasn't being used by somebody else? The Penalty Fare was the right course of action in this case, if on the lenient side. Your comparison to Police producers isn't a valid one, as this relates to documents to prove you're insured, MoTd etc, if the person concerned doesn't provide this evidence, they're reported for the initial offence. It's not a legal requirement when driving to carry all of your documents. It is a requirement when using a discounted ticket on a train or bus, to carry any documents you need to prove you're entitled to travel on a discounted ticket. Therefore they've already committed offences if this is the case on the bus or train. Not necessarily so on the road as a person hasn't necesserily committed an offence when given a producer. Producers are dying out these days with the dawn of ANPR, but that's for another topic.

[Conniff]

What's to say the accompanying document existed?

 

 

So your think the OP is a liar and everyone who ever made an error are liars - nice.

[Old-CodJA]

Yea, they haven't changed, they know when they are on to a good thing.

 

 

The reason that successive generations and therefore successive governments over the past 125 years have not seen the need to remove the Regulation of Railways Act (1889) nor even substantially amend it, is because it is good law.

 

The National Railways Byelaws were last reviewed and revised by The Department for Transport in 2005 and they actually strengthened them to suit the challenges of modern society.

 

Good law does not need revision

 

 

So you have never accidently done something that you are supposed to. This is a cash cow and we all know it.

 

 

I am sorry, but you really are wrong. Perhaps you should spend a week with the ticketless travel survey teams to get a tiny insight into the amount of revenue loss. The companies that conduct these surveys are mainly independent of the TOCs and often crying out for staff to undertake the survey contracts.

 

Still directly involved, I can categorically state that timbo58 is correct. It is certainly not a 'cash cow' as you put it, but most companies are now taking steps to deal robustly with losses, whether premeditated fare evasion, accidental, or opportunist.

[Conniff]

I watched a few programmes about this and yes the amount who deliberately try it on is enormous, but I don't see why there is a blanket fine when there doesn't need to be. There are honest people in this world.

 

 

If this isn't a cash cow, then neither is council car parking charges and private parking companies.

[Conniff]

Yes he knows the rules, but because he had a mental block and forgot his id does that make him a criminal. He has paid so is not intentionally attempting to defraud the company.

 

 

The railways are now all over the media and as it's all one big club, it also applies to TFL.

 

 

Rail companies told to stop treating passengers ‘like criminals’

 

 

The decision comes after news of one traveller who failed to show his railcard had to hand over an extra £229, even after submitting the card in his appeal, Passenger Focus found.

 

 

“It is right that train companies should take steps to stop those who try to evade paying fares. But those who have made an innocent mistake and been caught out by the many rules and restrictions should be treated with understanding and not immediately assumed to be guilty.

 

“We are also looking for a change to the railway byelaws to stop the use of criminal sanctions where there isn’t any evidence that the passenger was attempting to commit fraud.”

 

Ministers have announced overhaul of the current train penalty fare regime

Those who make innocent mistakes will no longer be 'treated like criminals'

Government stepping in to ensure honest travellers aren't unfairly treated

Coincides with a damning report about the behaviour of ticket inspectors

Edited February 3, 2015 by Conniff

[Conniff]

I would like to add the Transport For London to this thread as they have the exact same attitude as the rail companies.

While they can demand payment for the most innocent mistake by threats of court action and a criminal record, it, by virtue of being a life changer, scares them into paying. As there is no independent appeals system, they are scarred for life, even things like being charged higher premiums for motor insurance or serious things like being refused employment.

 

Why should a person who 'forgot' his id, (maybe because he is suffering from mild altzheimers or had a stroke), be put into the same class as murderers and rapists.

 

 

I don't think these bylaws were written with the intention of milking the general public, but those at the top have taken advantage of it to help fill the coffers of these greedy and inefficient, badly managed companies.

 

 

I am not against retribution for those who deliberately attempt to get a free ride.

 

 

I notice Passenger Focus don't make it easy to contact them, there is no email that I can find.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Conniff

[Stigy]

So your think the OP is a liar and everyone who ever made an error are liars - nice.

I didn't say that. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some strange reason (can't think why). I was playing devil's advocate and outlining why these rules are in place in the first place, as it's not beyond the realms of possibility that one or two people, might, on occasion, not be 100% truthful. Some people need to think outside the box a bit and realise that the world isn't all rose tinted etc.

[Stigy]

An interesting proposal by Passenger Focus, but once again, even 'lost tickets' which are entirely possible and legitimate, could be something more deliberate. The Penalty Fare is used as a deterrent against fare evasion and is not intended to criminalise innocent parties. The article is correct in that if staff believe a deliberate act of fare evasion has taken place then that person should be reported for the offence and not Penalty Fare'd. The Penalty Fare is no different to Fixed Penalty Notices given for certain motoring offences, or Penalty Notices for Disorder for other low-level crimes in that they are a means of disposing of an offence without the need to escalate the matter to court, which would be the next step up the ladder.

 

It's wrong to threaten passengers that non-payment could result in prosecution for the nil payment, but correct that the passenger needs to be advised that if they chose to either not pay or appeal the notice, it may be cancelled and proceed to court under different legislation. I can't see an issue with this scenario. If Passenger Focus are getting at what I think they are, in that the Strict Liability system is flawed, I think they could be opening a can of worms, as Strict Liability doesn't only relate to Railway Byelaws. To say companies are putting passengers who make honest mistakes in the same category as rapists and murderers is yet another silly comparison. For starters railway Byelaws, though criminal matters, aren't recordable and are not punishable by a prison term.

[Conniff]

An interesting proposal by Passenger Focus, but once again, even 'lost tickets' which are entirely possible and legitimate, could be something more deliberate. The Penalty Fare is used as a deterrent against fare evasion and is not intended to criminalise innocent parties. The article is correct in that if staff believe a deliberate act of fare evasion has taken place then that person should be reported for the offence and not Penalty Fare'd. The Penalty Fare is no different to Fixed Penalty Notices given for certain motoring offences, or Penalty Notices for Disorder for other low-level crimes in that they are a means of disposing of an offence without the need to escalate the matter to court, which would be the next step up the ladder.

 

It's wrong to threaten passengers that non-payment could result in prosecution for the nil payment, but correct that the passenger needs to be advised that if they chose to either not pay or appeal the notice, it may be cancelled and proceed to court under different legislation. I can't see an issue with this scenario. If Passenger Focus are getting at what I think they are, in that the Strict Liability system is flawed, I think they could be opening a can of worms, as Strict Liability doesn't only relate to Railway Byelaws. To say companies are putting passengers who make honest mistakes in the same category as rapists and murderers is yet another silly comparison. For starters railway Byelaws, though criminal matters, aren't recordable and are not punishable by a prison term.

 

 

You say it is not intended to criminalise people and then you say it is by 'if we can't get you one way we will get you another'.

Of course they are putting them into the same category, Rape is a criminal offence, Murder is a criminal offence, forgetting your id is a criminal offence. So what if the person has mild altzheimers or had a stroke, that makes them disabled not criminals.

 

 

I've merged the other post from http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440052-TFL-Stitch-UP&p=4687002#post4687002 thread to here.

[Stigy]

You say it is not intended to criminalise people and then you say it is by 'if we can't get you one way we will get you another'.

Of course they are putting them into the same category, Rape is a criminal offence, Murder is a criminal offence, forgetting your id is a criminal offence. So what if the person has mild altzheimers or had a stroke, that makes them disabled not criminals.

 

 

I've merged the other post from http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440052-TFL-Stitch-UP&p=4687002#post4687002 thread to here.

No, you're putting words in to my mouth. Or maybe I wasn't making it clear enough? The Penalty Fare is meant as a civil remedy for a criminal matter. You can't issue a PF without having grounds to do so, and if an appeal is lost the person has to either pay up or risk going to court for a bylaw offence. Staff have discretion, and have used it before believe it or not, which takes in to account vulnerable people. We're not going to agree, clearly, but you do seem to have a narrow minded view of how things work....No doubt I'll be edited out.

 

How has the other post gone from this thread but merged with the other, and vice versa...They relate to different things, surely?

[andydd]

I would like to add the Transport For London to this thread as they have the exact same attitude as the rail companies.

While they can demand payment for the most innocent mistake by threats of court action and a criminal record, it, by virtue of being a life changer, scares them into paying. As there is no independent appeals system, they are scarred for life, even things like being charged higher premiums for motor insurance or serious things like being refused employment.

 

Why should a person who 'forgot' his id, (maybe because he is suffering from mild altzheimers or had a stroke), be put into the same class as murderers and rapists.

 

 

I don't think these bylaws were written with the intention of milking the general public, but those at the top have taken advantage of it to help fill the coffers of these greedy and inefficient, badly managed companies.

 

 

I am not against retribution for those who deliberately attempt to get a free ride.

 

 

I notice Passenger Focus don't make it easy to contact them, there is no email that I can find.

 

Email is advice@passengerfocus.org.uk

[andydd]

An interesting proposal by Passenger Focus, but once again, even 'lost tickets' which are entirely possible and legitimate, could be something more deliberate. The Penalty Fare is used as a deterrent against fare evasion and is not intended to criminalise innocent parties. The article is correct in that if staff believe a deliberate act of fare evasion has taken place then that person should be reported for the offence and not Penalty Fare'd. The Penalty Fare is no different to Fixed Penalty Notices given for certain motoring offences, or Penalty Notices for Disorder for other low-level crimes in that they are a means of disposing of an offence without the need to escalate the matter to court, which would be the next step up the ladder.

 

It's wrong to threaten passengers that non-payment could result in prosecution for the nil payment, but correct that the passenger needs to be advised that if they chose to either not pay or appeal the notice, it may be cancelled and proceed to court under different legislation. I can't see an issue with this scenario. If Passenger Focus are getting at what I think they are, in that the Strict Liability system is flawed, I think they could be opening a can of worms, as Strict Liability doesn't only relate to Railway Byelaws. To say companies are putting passengers who make honest mistakes in the same category as rapists and murderers is yet another silly comparison. For starters railway Byelaws, though criminal matters, aren't recordable and are not punishable by a prison term.

 

The cases referred to are where a person has lost or forgotten a ticket but has proof that it was indeed purchased so clearly there was no intention to evade a fare. In fact I believe all the cases referred to relate to travellers who made simple mistakes and not attempted to evade fares.

 

I disagree with your last point though, I don't know any other situation where someone can be threatened with criminal sanctions (and sometimes incorrectly, the threat of jail) for failing to pay a civil claim. IF the initial inspector had any belief that a person was evading the fare then the prosecution route should be followed straight away NOT only pursued some time later because the traveller hasn't paid the penalty fare or extra admin charges, PF make this point quite clearly and I think their views are very persuasive.

[Stigy]

The cases referred to are where a person has lost or forgotten a ticket but has proof that it was indeed purchased so clearly there was no intention to evade a fare. In fact I believe all the cases referred to relate to travellers who made simple mistakes and not attempted to evade fares.

I know, but still thinking outside of the norm, what's to say somebody else wasn't using the miss-placed ticket? Or the railcard etc?

 

I disagree with your last point though, I don't know any other situation where someone can be threatened with criminal sanctions (and sometimes incorrectly, the threat of jail) for failing to pay a civil claim. IF the initial inspector had any belief that a person was evading the fare then the prosecution route should be followed straight away NOT only pursued some time later because the traveller hasn't paid the penalty fare or extra admin charges, PF make this point quite clearly and I think their views are very persuasive.

 

It happens all the time with FPNs and PNDs. Initially they'll add charges, and then the issuing body will progress the matter to Magistrates' Court. Maybe the railway should take a leaf out of the Police's book and make the appeals process the Magistrates' Court, rather than an apparently 'independent' body? That would be fair wouldn't it? Might defeat the object a little, and maybe clog up the court system, but all in the name of justice I guess!

[Old-CodJA]

I agree with Stigy's last post and have copied here a response I made to another thread a little earlier, because in a sense it is perhaps more relevant in this thread in some ways.

 

We are bound to see a great many similar posts given the start of the consultative review process that commences today and will continue until well into April.

 

There is an enormous amount of misunderstanding about the current procedures and no-one pretends that the Penalty Fares system is perfect, far from it.

 

I was working in railways revenue protection when BR introduced the pilot PF scheme on a small part of the then Network-SouthEast and well remember how a great many staff & public alike seemed to think it would be some magical panacea, but of course that has proved to be far from the truth.

 

The fact is that the then government wrote into the rules the remedy for failing to pay or successfully appeal such a notice and then failing to pay after being notified of that appeal rejection right at the beginning. The remedy is cancellation of the notice and proceed to prosecution at the discretion of the rail company. None of those first prosecutions alleged the breach of Byelaw 18, which has currently become fashionable in some areas and has lead to challenges of perceived unfairness. Instead the Magistrates were asked to consider the following points:

 

i) the traveller did not hold a valid ticket,

ii) the traveller was given an opportunity to pay, or appeal liability, but did not successfully do so

iii) the traveller was notified that their appeal had been rejected and why

iv) the payment request was re-stated, but remains unpaid

v) the rail company contends that having failed to pay the correct fare before travelling, having failed to pay the correct fare due when requested, having failed to pay that fare on written application, that the company believes the traveller's intention was not to pay the correct fare due.

 

I don't recall many, if any, of those early prosecutions failing.

 

Now it may well be that this review will revise that rule and I don't disagree that some urgent revisions of the overall Penalty Fares process are definitely desireable, but given that quite quickly after the introduction of Penalty Fares it was noted that an increasing number of travellers would present without valid tickets and 'advise' the member of staff conducting the ticket examination "You need to give me one of those notice things" or something similar, only never to pay up, there will have to be an alternative.

 

I wonder how quickly we find that on some TOCs many fewer PF Notices will be issued, many unregulated fares will rise sharply and more allegations of intent not to pay may be reported when travellers are found to be on train having not paid before boarding.

 

Yes, the TOCs will need to be sure that facilities for prepayment are available and continually improved, but I really don't think the continuing trend for more robust revenue protection policies will be swept away by this review.

[dx100uk]

discussion thread sorted

 

 

please continue to post here on this subject

 

 

dx