Passenger Focus - "Dont treat us like criminals"

[Conniff]

I'm not understanding this part OC:

 

 

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.

 

 

If you successfully appeal something, why would you have to pay ??

[Old-CodJA]

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.

 

 

That isn't the case though Andy. The traveller is not pursued to criminal action for a 'civil' debt. Action alleges only the unpaid fare, which is a criminal matter, it does not allege the amount of any unpaid penalty.

 

When the Penalty Fares (Railways) Rules were first drawn up it was recognised that habitual 'fare evaders' might well be tempted to manipulate the system in an effort to avoid paying.

 

As one example, the original system required that, at the very least, a permit to travel (PERTIS) machine should be available at every station from where anyone travelling without a valid ticket might be subject to a PFN. Those machines accepted every coin denomination from 5p upwards so that the intending traveller could obtain a permit showing where he had boarded and therefore indicating no intention not to pay. The permit must be exchanged by paying the balance of fare within 2 hours of issue.

 

The machines had a notice stating that for local journeys the traveller could put further coinage for smaller fares into the machine up to the amount of the fare for the journey for which they intended to make and the permit to travel then becomes a valid travel ticket for their journey, showing the full fare paid. This very rarely happened.

 

What did happen was there was a huge surge in travellers on trains and at exit barriers holding just a 5p PERTIS, hoping that they would not be caught before completing their journey and in a high percentage of cases, not even having the means to pay the balance of fare with them. These people were relying on the 'insurance policy' of that 5p PERTIS to avoid the likelihood of prosecution, a policy that only became available because the railways put trust in travellers to be honest and it was immediately abused.

 

The more blatant fare avoiders would simply board with a story about facilities not being available, knowing that until the staff concerned were able to check and unfortunately it is still the case that great swathes of the country have less than desirable mobile communications, a PF notice would be issued. The pressure of limited helpline staff trying to deal with many enquiries leaving the authorised person often unable to get an immediate response and therefore not able be certain that the traveller is not telling the truth, means the PF will have to be issued to allow appeal.

 

Despite reminders, the offender then fails to pay up when it is found that facilities were indeed available to him. Dispensing with the eventual criminal sanction means that offence will continue to grow in times of general fiscal restraint just as now.

 

The staff member will have acted correctly throughout in such a scenario and as the original PF Rules draft recognised, there must be an option to prosecute the offender in these circumstances.

 

Finally, the summons does not allege the amount of any civil remedy, but alleges the amount of the unpaid single fare as it is that sum that the traveller has avoided paying on request.

 

I am not a fan of summonses being issued alleging a full fare avoided when a traveller holds a time or train restricted ticket on a different service to that paid for, but which is otherwise valid for that route.

 

Having said that, there must be a viable sanction put in place to kerb the growing number of travellers who try to manipulate the system. Many do so by paying the cheapest possible fare, accepting the terms & conditions at time of purchase to obtain a hugely discounted ticket, but then travelling on another faster train or one for which that ticket is not valid and giving clearly spurios excuses for why they did not abide by the conditions that they had previously agreed to.

 

The rules already cover service disruptions whereby the traveller will be conveyed by the next available service and that is clearly the right way of doing things

 

Yes, the incredibly complex multi TOC ticketing system needs an overhaul, but so does consistent action to deal robustly with the growing trend of opportunistic fare evasion.

[Conniff]

the growing trend of opportunistic fare evasion.

I don't think anyone, especially me, has ever disagreed with the bringing to book of anyone deliberately trying to avoid paying the legitimate fare.

You will also note that I have never sided with anyone posting here who knows they have done wrong but is looking for a way out. I fundamentally disagree with the attitude of being guilty and having to prove innocence and when that innocence is proved, they are still required to pay and are stigmatised and threatened with court action if they don't.

[Old-CodJA]

I'm not understanding this part OC:

 

If you successfully appeal something, why would you have to pay ??

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but I don't understand what it is you haven't understood. I stated 'then failing to pay after being notified of that appeal rejection'. That's not a successful appeal.

 

i.e; Appeal made, but not accepted after proper assessment of the circumstances, appellant notified appeal not accepted and payment request re-stated.

 

Or are you saying that every appeal must be accepted by the TOC regardless of circumstances and proven culpability by a traveller ??

 

That way lies anarchy.

 

A great many appeals are already allowed and liability cancelled, I agree that some others may be borderline cases, which maybe I would allow and you might not, but there will always be such cases and my instinct has always been to err on the side of caution. If you're not sure, allow the benefit of the doubt, nothing more.

[fletch70]

I am the first to admit I do not understand the details of the l;aws around train travel and tickets however there has been some focus on the T.V. about London Midland and their penalty fare system. There was one guy interviewed who said a penalty fare of £20 every 6 months was worth it and to an extent I would agree.

What is needed is a consistent approach across all train companies and the BTP really should be supporting the rail companies where ID checks are required. I would be more than happy to provide details to identify myself if I was challenged about travel.

I have lost count the number of times I have travelled to BHam new St without the opportunity to buy a ticket and then there is no one on the barriers. At least at leicester you need a ticket to get through the barriers

[Old-CodJA]

I fundamentally disagree with the attitude of being guilty and having to prove innocence and when that innocence is proved, they are still required to pay and are stigmatised and threatened with court action if they don't.

 

 

 

Please give a specific example of where exactly that has actually happened and I'll investigate and post again.

 

For avoidance of doubt, that is, an example where someone has appealed, the appeal body has accepted that appeal indicating that the appellant is not culpable in any way (innocent) and the TOC or their agents have still pursued a threat of prosecution.

[Old-CodJA]

on the T.V. about London Midland and their penalty fare system. There was one guy interviewed who said a penalty fare of £20 every 6 months was worth it and to an extent I would agree.

 

 

The real problem in accepting this practice as 'OK' and abandoning the Court sanction as a final arbiter is that all the rest of the honest (98%) of fare paying, ticket holding travellers end up paying more to cover losses.

 

Unless we are going to get a really effective penalty for failing to pay, nothing will change.

 

 

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'

 

 

This is the kind of emotive misinterpretation that leads to so much mistrust, misunderstanding and misinformation.

 

I have gone back through these posts and cannot see anywhere that Stigy, Andy, I or any other contributor, except the quoted post here has ever said the TOCs or anyone else is 'out to get' anybody.

[king12345]

First page of metro yesterday talked about a guy whose appeal was allowed but he still had to pay £20 admin fee.

There were no further details about it, but that seemed a bit more journalistic scoop than reality.

[andydd]

I think some (including me) are now getting a bit lost in the legal technicalities, I simply refer back to the Passenger Focus report, they clearly have become concerned over recent cases and they have felt the need to publish ANOTHER report after their 2012 one, there still appears to be some serious problems with the issuing of Penalty Fares and sometimes, prosecutions, and in particular the way that passengers are sometimes treated unfairly and the huge inconsistencies in the way the system is implemented.

[andydd]

That isn't the case though Andy. The traveller is not pursued to criminal action for a 'civil' debt. Action alleges only the unpaid fare, which is a criminal matter, it does not allege the amount of any unpaid penalty.

 

When the Penalty Fares (Railways) Rules were first drawn up it was recognised that habitual 'fare evaders' might well be tempted to manipulate the system in an effort to avoid paying.

 

As one example, the original system required that, at the very least, a permit to travel (PERTIS) machine should be available at every station from where anyone travelling without a valid ticket might be subject to a PFN. Those machines accepted every coin denomination from 5p upwards so that the intending traveller could obtain a permit showing where he had boarded and therefore indicating no intention not to pay. The permit must be exchanged by paying the balance of fare within 2 hours of issue.

 

The machines had a notice stating that for local journeys the traveller could put further coinage for smaller fares into the machine up to the amount of the fare for the journey for which they intended to make and the permit to travel then becomes a valid travel ticket for their journey, showing the full fare paid. This very rarely happened.

 

What did happen was there was a huge surge in travellers on trains and at exit barriers holding just a 5p PERTIS, hoping that they would not be caught before completing their journey and in a high percentage of cases, not even having the means to pay the balance of fare with them. These people were relying on the 'insurance policy' of that 5p PERTIS to avoid the likelihood of prosecution, a policy that only became available because the railways put trust in travellers to be honest and it was immediately abused.

 

The more blatant fare avoiders would simply board with a story about facilities not being available, knowing that until the staff concerned were able to check and unfortunately it is still the case that great swathes of the country have less than desirable mobile communications, a PF notice would be issued. The pressure of limited helpline staff trying to deal with many enquiries leaving the authorised person often unable to get an immediate response and therefore not able be certain that the traveller is not telling the truth, means the PF will have to be issued to allow appeal.

 

Despite reminders, the offender then fails to pay up when it is found that facilities were indeed available to him. Dispensing with the eventual criminal sanction means that offence will continue to grow in times of general fiscal restraint just as now.

 

The staff member will have acted correctly throughout in such a scenario and as the original PF Rules draft recognised, there must be an option to prosecute the offender in these circumstances.

 

Finally, the summons does not allege the amount of any civil remedy, but alleges the amount of the unpaid single fare as it is that sum that the traveller has avoided paying on request.

 

I am not a fan of summonses being issued alleging a full fare avoided when a traveller holds a time or train restricted ticket on a different service to that paid for, but which is otherwise valid for that route.

 

Having said that, there must be a viable sanction put in place to kerb the growing number of travellers who try to manipulate the system. Many do so by paying the cheapest possible fare, accepting the terms & conditions at time of purchase to obtain a hugely discounted ticket, but then travelling on another faster train or one for which that ticket is not valid and giving clearly spurios excuses for why they did not abide by the conditions that they had previously agreed to.

 

The rules already cover service disruptions whereby the traveller will be conveyed by the next available service and that is clearly the right way of doing things

 

Yes, the incredibly complex multi TOC ticketing system needs an overhaul, but so does consistent action to deal robustly with the growing trend of opportunistic fare evasion.

 

I refer to the PF Report which quotes

 

"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 the

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

‘encourage’ payment of a debt."

 

IF they are completely wrong (which I doubt) then perhaps someone should let them know.

[Old-CodJA]

I refer to the PF Report which quotes

 

"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 the

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

‘encourage’ payment of a debt."

 

IF they are completely wrong (which I doubt) then perhaps someone should let them know.

 

 

Here is a link to the Railways Penalty Fares Rules [2002]

 

https://www.ircas.co.uk/docs/SRA%20-%20Penalty%20Fare%20Rules%202002.pdf

 

Please read pages 26 & 27 under the heading 'Exclusion of double liability' which make the right to cancel the civil debt and proceed to prosecution of certain offences perfectly clear.

 

You will see these rules were confirmed by the then Ministor of State at DfT, Roger Freeman.

[andydd]

No one is denying the RIght exists, BUT the PF report believes it is wholly wrong to later cancel a civil debt and turn it into a threat of criminal prosecution.

[andydd]

Perhaps someone could answer this query , if I turn up at my local station with only my debit card and the office is closed and I then try to purchase a ticket on the train, but certain cards don't work (this is acknowledged in the PF report), can a inspector issue a penalty fare because I don't have cash on me ?, I've just been told this.

[Old-CodJA]

No one is denying the RIght exists, BUT the PF report believes it is wholly wrong to later cancel a civil debt and turn it into a threat of criminal prosecution.

 

 

 

That is the point Andy, the rights do exist and should remain unchanged, we work closely with PF and I know for a fact that they do not want the law changed in respect of fare evasion, whether pre-meditated or opportunistic and that must include some unpaid notices.

 

What I believe that PF want is a truly consistent and fair application of the rules across the board and so do I and my colleagues.

 

Personally, what I would do is abandon Penalty Fare notices altogether and replace them with Unpaid Fare Notices across the board.

 

I would also abandon paying on-train staff commission on ticket issues and UFNs, but that would have to be preceded by an increase in basic pay for these staff accordingly.

 

If intent to avoid a fare is evident then the traveller would be reported for prosecution, no unpaid fare notice would be issued, but a letter would be sent advising intent to prosecute and a Summons should be issued.

 

If there was no intent to avoid payment evident to the inspector an Unpaid Fare Notice should be issued

 

All appeals would have be assessed correctly by a truly independent organisation or organisations against the criteria already determined by the ATOC Code of Practice that was agreed by representatives from across the TOCs two years ago. This is not a public document, but is something with which all relevant parties should be fully familiar. The process should follow these lines:

 

1. The recipient of the Unpaid Fare Notice would have 21 days to successfully appeal liability or pay just the correct fare that is due under the rules without penalty. Once an appeal is received the clock stops until the traveller is sent a response.

 

2. If the UFN is not successfully appealed and the fare remains unpaid after 21 days, the traveller will be given one opportunity to pay the fare and the associated administration costs incurred, say £50 to cover the two sessions of admin time incurred plus postage & sundries, and that sum must be paid within a further 21 days from the date of letter or the matter can proceed to prosecution as now.

 

3. Any person who is reported again within 12 months would go straight to stage 2, giving an opportunity to appeal or pay the administrative disposal and the letter would include a warning that further incidents may result in a report for prosecution of an offence.

[MrHat]

From what I have witnessed, South West Trains use the rules to milk people that make genuine errors.

 

Every time i go racing at Sandown (esher station), there is an army of revenue protection people and BTP to catch people with oysters. Esher is one stop outside of oyster zone. Surbiton is last stop in zone 6.

 

I have always known this as i live in surbiton so never got caught out but i am appalled at the tactic as EVERYONE they 'catch' will have paid a fare or tapped in to go on a day out from london.

 

Meanwhile they cant be bothered to tackle blatant fare dodging. Check out twitter account @freeswt1stclass

 

I see people taking liberties all the time but swt are not interested.

 

This is only from my perspective but it is hard to imagine that swt are using the regs in an honourable way

[firstclassx]

Perhaps someone could answer this query , if I turn up at my local station with only my debit card and the office is closed and I then try to purchase a ticket on the train, but certain cards don't work (this is acknowledged in the PF report), can a inspector issue a penalty fare because I don't have cash on me ?, I've just been told this.

 

The card is restricted by your bank, not the railway. People with poor credit ratings/high risk people/restricted accounts etc are not trusted/permitted by the bank to use their card in an "offline" environment.

 

If a card is rejected, it is between you and your bank ultimately, as they are the ones who are telling some of the railway equipment to reject payment based on your card profile settings.

 

If I was an Inspector and came across you, and the ticket office/machine was closed/not available, I'd issue you something called an Unpaid Fares Notice which gives you a few days to just pay the fare you owe, plus a small (£1-2 fee). If I came across you a second time, or when I verify your details with the helpline they inform me you have been previously issued an UFN/Penalty Fare etc, then I'd report for potential prosecution, as it would be clear that you are aware your card does not work.

[andydd]

I don't think thats not correct, the card is not restricted by the bank, I phoned the toc and they told me it was just temporary and was down to the wifi signal on the train ( I tried more than one card) but don't know if that's correct. In any event surely a passenger wouldn't know of a station is manned or not, the station in question near me is supposed to be manned.

[andydd]

I see that yesterday's metro story had a huge response on the letters page with many with similar 'horror' stories and s couple (one from an inspector) who claim there is no problem at all, it is slightly worrying that PF believe there IS an issue but others at TOCs clam otherwise, as most haven't published figures despite being asked to, we may not know.

[Conniff]

plus a small (£1-2 fee).

 

 

So even though it is the fault of the rail company by the machine not working you would still issue a 'extra'. It is just as I have always said, a cash cow.

[andydd]

I agree, I tried all the various options to purchase a ticket.

 

1. Ticket Office (Shut, there is no clue whether it will be staffed or not until you get there).

2. Ticket machine (Isnt one)

3. Permit To Travel (Not working)

4. Lloyds card (Didnt work)

5. RBD Card (Didn't work)

 

So according to the TOC because they cant be bothered to provide a decent service I must travel approx. 2 miles out of my way to withdraw cash. All of the above issues are easily fixed, surely the onus is on the TOC to fix the issues, I note I'm not the only one who has been affected and that other threats of fines/prosecution have been given to travellers (see attached pic).

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]55777[/ATTACH]

 

Can you picture any other type of business operated in a similar fashion ?, they'd soon be out of business.

[fletch70]

I do know that cross country have a floor limit and if the card fails to go through because of say no wifi then they can manually input it . On the line from Hinckley to Birmingham there is a huge wifi blackspot that seems to last about 15 minutes. Even my coop cashminder account goes through manually

[Stigy]

The card is restricted by your bank, not the railway. People with poor credit ratings/high risk people/restricted accounts etc are not trusted/permitted by the bank to use their card in an "offline" environment.

 

If a card is rejected, it is between you and your bank ultimately, as they are the ones who are telling some of the railway equipment to reject payment based on your card profile settings.

 

If I was an Inspector and came across you, and the ticket office/machine was closed/not available, I'd issue you something called an Unpaid Fares Notice which gives you a few days to just pay the fare you owe, plus a small (£1-2 fee). If I came across you a second time, or when I verify your details with the helpline they inform me you have been previously issued an UFN/Penalty Fare etc, then I'd report for potential prosecution, as it would be clear that you are aware your card does not work.

Some cards just don't like the machines (or the other way around!). For example, my debit card (MasterCard) is a full debit card (not one of those silly Electron Cards), and doesn't like a lot of the systems such as TVMs and pay at pump fuel systems. From experience, the only cards other than the obvious Electron cards that aren't accepted anyway, that don't seem to work are Lloyds bank Visa cards...Problem is, a lot of the nominals know this and use it to their advantage.

[andydd]

Some interesting points, Ill add though.

 

1. Someone arriving at this station doesn't know if the office will be manned or not, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

 

2. The TOC are aware there is no machine and the permit machine is broken, they have taken the decision not to fix these issues.

 

3. There is no explanation of why certain cards don't work,and I've no idea whether cards don't work full stop or its a temporary wifi issue, as I mentioned I tried two. The website says

 

What Debit/Credit cards can be used?

 

 

Online bookings

 

We accept Visa Credit, Visa Debit, Visa Electron, MasterCard, American Express and Maestro cards.

 

Our booking systems cannot accept Solo cards.

 

As we are an online retailer we do not accept cash.

 

Please note: If you are collecting tickets from a Self Service Ticket Machine only standard shaped cards are accepted. Non-standard cards such as Mint and American Express are not accepted. In such cases please speak to a member of station or ticket office staff who will be able to assist.

 

Ticket Office bookings

 

Our ticket offices accept payment in cash, by company cheque (made payable to "Abellio Greater Anglia" - supporting documentation may be required, please ask our sales staff for more information), MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Maestro (formerly Switch) or Delta cards and by Rail Travel Vouchers.

 

 

http://www.abelliogreateranglia.co.uk/contact-us/faqs/booking

 

So as you can see specific cards such as Solo, Mint and American Express are mentioned, I have Lloyds and RBS.

 

 

4. It is acceptable in certain circumstances on both my local lines top pay at the destination (which is what I did yesterday), you will find many people purchasing tickets this way every morning.

 

5. The cards CAN be used by inspectors even if he machine doesn't work, as its possible to phone through the card details as Ive seen these done.

 

6. The TOC's are clearly aware of this 'area of conflict' as the PF report mentions it.

 

Penalty Fares and Byelaw 18 don't apply as the original station had no means of purchasing a ticket (and the TOC doesn't appear to be in any hurry to rectify this).

 

Taking all of this into account I am amazed that it could the TOC could even consider prosecuting (or attempted to) a traveller under these conditions, it appears to me to be stretching the law to its absolute limit, and it would back up PF's claims of being unfair and unreasonable IMO.

 

Lastly and bizarrely if a similar situation happened on the other line (C2C), (if there were no facilities at station), then the situation wouldn't arise as the inspector staff don't carry mobile card machines, so by Greater Anglia offering an extra service of paying on the train a traveller puts him or herself at greater risk of prosecution.

[Conniff]

Southern trains admits it gets up to 5,000 complaints a DAY as it languishes near the bottom of customer rankings

That's 35,000 complaints per week - and do they care, do they hell as like.

 

It doesn't just rain, it pours on these disgusting moneymaking companies. This is all down to the staff and their attitude to customers.

[Old-CodJA]

Southern trains admits it gets up to 5,000 complaints a DAY as it languishes near the bottom of customer rankings

That's 35,000 complaints per week - and do they care, do they hell as like.

 

It doesn't just rain, it pours on these disgusting moneymaking companies. This is all down to the staff and their attitude to customers.

 

 

 

 

I am amazed that a management team member of any site that purports to try to actually help people who come seeking assistance, should be allowed to openly publish such opinionated drivel.

 

 

At the very least I would expect the management of such a site to offer only unbiased, well researched and most of all, wholly constructive offerings.

 

 

I suggest that if the site cannot do that then it has lost its legitimacy