Penalty Charges on Trains

[MilkTrayMan]

Originally Posted by BigNick2

...I want to know the complex answer

Read the following relevant sections...

Railways Act 2003
Railways Act 2005


...

[Paintball]

I repeat ... a penalty ch... Oh, can't be bothered! Yawn

Just keep challenging them peeps, pay the fare, offer your name and addy ... nods off ....

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


... lol ...

[MilkTrayMan]

Further contempory discussion...

SW Trains unfair charge


FWIW...When I was employed as a RPI I did NOT receive commission, just a basic salary...

[Paintball]

Methinks you were not paid NEARLY enough ...

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Paintball

Anyway, a penalty is a penalty is a penalty. Unenforceable by common law and statute.

Unless it is a, oh, let's see... Library fine? Railway fine? Traffic Offence Penalty? An Inland Revenue Penalty?

There are actually different types of penalties, some of which are legitimate, or at least legitimised, and there are those which are not... So however much it pains me to contradict you for the second time on different threads, my lovely PB, no, a penalty is not a penalty is not a penalty...

[BigNick2]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

Unless it is a, oh, let's see... Library fine? Railway fine? Traffic Offence Penalty? An Inland Revenue Penalty?

There are actually different types of penalties, some of which are legitimate, or at least legitimised, and there are those which are not... So however much it pains me to contradict you for the second time on different threads, my lovely PB, no, a penalty is not a penalty is not a penalty...

They all seem to be examples of penalties from public bodies, not private companies - so, since privitisation of the railways is it no possible that their penalty charges could be treated as just invoices, and as such are not enforceable as penalties?

Thanks for links MTM, understand completely what your saying about the railways being accountable to their own bylaws, but Im still not getting whether or not these overide penalty charge statute - and if so is this set in stone in law?

Oh and prob only fair to warn you that ill probably find another angle to argue from if that one doesnt work

[Paintball]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

Unless it is a, oh, let's see... Library fine? Railway fine? Traffic Offence Penalty? An Inland Revenue Penalty?

There are actually different types of penalties, some of which are legitimate, or at least legitimised, and there are those which are not... So however much it pains me to contradict you for the second time on different threads, my lovely PB, no, a penalty is not a penalty is not a penalty...

Contradict away dearie ... that's what you're NOT paid to do ... lol ...

The Q here seems to centre around whether an individual who, for whatever reason, has been unable to purchase a ticket prior to a particular rail journey, should have a penalty charge imposed upon them (by a ticket inspector) when trying to purchase a ticket on the train. The attached Guardian article poses some interesting points for consideration, in particular, that the onus is on the rail company to prove that the individual was fare dodging. Presenting yourself to the inspector and asking to pay can hardly be construed as a dishonest act and it seems that all reasonable arguments given as to why a ticket was not able to be puchased are waived away with the general assumption that dishonesty is at the root of it ... is the penalty fairly applied? I think not and I hope more people will challenge the rail companies.

[RichardM]

I think a lot of people are finding it hard to differentiate between penalty charges, which are an invention of commercial organisations without any standing in law and often unlawful, and penalty fares, which were introduced by Government and backed by statute and an Act of Parliament and therefore legally enforceable.

[Castlebest]

As a case in point, I traveled to Birmingham New Street station just before Christmas from my local "provincial" (Birmingham suburb) station,

The local station is a one man operation and the man happened to be out collecting litter and tidying up so no tickets were available from the kiosk.

The ticket machine had a queue at it with a mother and pushchair at the head of the queue trying to get change into the machine to purchase her ticket.

The train pulled into the station so I asked the driver if it was ok to pay at New Street rather than miss the train and he said yes.

I went straight to the ticket purchase desk as soon as I got to New Street and told them the above but they wouldn't sell me a ticket for my journey until they had phoned my local station to check what I had said was true.

If I was "fair dodging" why would I go to buy a ticket as soon as I arrived? It just made the rail staff and the company look very petty and confirmed my "jobsworth" image of people who work for the railways.

I understand the need to try to catch "fair dodgers" but cannot see a reason why people who are trying to buy a ticket for their journey without being challenged by an inspector are treated like this unless the railway companies are trying to maximise the number of fines they issue.

[MilkTrayMan]

Some further links for peeps perusal...

GNN - Government News Network

Passenger Focus - Advice and information - The ticket office queue is so long I might miss my train. Do I have to buy a ticket?

Passenger Focus - Advice and information - I have lost my ticket - what are my rights?


...

[RichardM]

Were the barriers being manned at New Street by any chance?

It's amazing how many people ask to buy a ticket when the barriers are manned at New Street, but when they see they are not manned, they just walk straight through.

The train operator provided you with a method of purchasing a ticket before boarding the train but you CHOSE to arrive without sufficient time to ENSURE that you could purchase a ticket. You then CHOSE to get on the train, despite not having a ticket which you knew you should have been in possession of, rather than wait for the next train.

All that the staff at New Street were doing was making a call to varify your claim, and in doing so were doing you a favour, since they had every right to charge you the appropriate penalty fare by your own admission.

Instead of calling them jobsworths, I would suggest you should be grateful that they actually took the time and effort, despite hearing the same tired story from hundreds every day, to help you.

Incidently, before anyone says anything, yes I am a railman (so I'm biased), who has worked in the industry for nearly 30 years, including 12 years in booking offices and four years dealing with customer complaints. I may not agree with everything that goes on in are industry, but sometimes the customer has to take responsibility for making their own choices and their own actions and not blame those who make the rules when they choose to ignore them.

[MilkTrayMan]

When I was working as an RPI, we were issued with Pagers.
If there was a problem at any particular Station re: Booking Office closure/Ticket Machine malfunction etc etc, we were notified further down the line.

We were also requested to attend at some stations, to help issue tickets to ease lengthy queues that may have unexpectedly built up, overwhelming the normal number of Booking Office windows that were open at the time.


...

[Castlebest]

Originally Posted by RichardM

Were the barriers being manned at New Street by any chance?

It's amazing how many people ask to buy a ticket when the barriers are manned at New Street, but when they see they are not manned, they just walk straight through.
The barriers at New Street have been manned full time for the last 12 months at least

The train operator provided you with a method of purchasing a ticket before boarding the train but you CHOSE to arrive without sufficient time to ENSURE that you could purchase a ticket. You then CHOSE to get on the train, despite not having a ticket which you knew you should have been in possession of, rather than wait for the next train.
As I said this was just before Christmas so the queue was unusual. I also ASKED a railway employee if it was ok BEFORE I traveled.

All that the staff at New Street were doing was making a call to varify your claim, and in doing so were doing you a favour, since they had every right to charge you the appropriate penalty fare by your own admission.

Instead of calling them jobsworths, I would suggest you should be grateful that they actually took the time and effort, despite hearing the same tired story from hundreds every day, to help you.

Incidently, before anyone says anything, yes I am a railman (so I'm biased), who has worked in the industry for nearly 30 years, including 12 years in booking offices and four years dealing with customer complaints. I may not agree with everything that goes on in are industry, but sometimes the customer has to take responsibility for making their own choices and their own actions and not blame those who make the rules when they choose to ignore them.

I just think when a passenger tries to purchase a ticket whether this is at the beginning or the middle of their journey (was a return I asked for) it seems very petty to check up. I agree if I had been stopped and challenged by an inspector this would have been a very different scenario and I wouldnt blame anyone for checking my story.

[newfoundglory]

Actually, I have encountered a situation where a penalty fare would come under Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. I think these situations are rare though.

Penalty fares are usually covered by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Act 1992, not the bye-laws.

A ticket inspector tried to issue me with a penalty fare for not "touching in" with my Oyster card which contained a valid period Travelcard. He claimed I was liable to pay a penalty fare, I disputed any liability and did not believe any "offence" had been committed as I had a valid ticket covering my entire journey.

Actually, I think he was referring to the conditions of carriage which state you need to touch-in and touch-out. (on a side note, not that it matters but at the time Oyster card had told me I was not required to do so). Conditions of carriage are, correct me if i'm wrong, a civil contract. The bye-laws do state that a ticket whose conditions require it to be "validated" would not be a valid ticket unless its validated - however the conditions of carriage actually stated that a Oyster card containing a period travelcard which is available and valid at the time of travel is a valid ticket (which would not require "validation", that is contain a record of the start of your journey, unlike the pay-as-you-go system).

I concluded after the incident that as Schedule 17 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 did not allow the issuing of a penalty fare in my case, that the ticket inspector was likely to have known this, and that he was in fact trying to obtain money by way of deception. Not to mention carrying out individual journey and movement tracking with oyster card data specifically for issuing a fine (aka unlawful processing of personal data under the first data protection principle).

I think the trend is, like this situation here, going to be towards issuing penalties for whatever these rail companies can get away with - even if its against the laws which govern how they are to be issued in the first place. I reckon rail companies are today issuing penalties for "rule breaking" - breaches in the civil contracts and conditions which they themselves have written, claiming these to be some sort of criminal offences, even if the conditions themselves are unfair and restrict consumer rights under Sale of Goods etc. Only in the UK could you be issued with a penalty for carrying a completely valid ticket, at the discretion of a ticket inspector of course!

I now ask for staff id of any ticket inspector who approaches me and note name, record any conversations on my phone which would allow bringing about of private prosecutions where necessary.