| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Penalty fare increase
Surprised the increase to £50 (£25 if paid within 3 weeks) on TfL services
hasn't been mentioned: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/10025.aspx I wonder if mainline rail, regional trams, and the TW Metro etc will follow? Paul S |
Penalty fare increase
On 11 Oct, 17:32, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Surprised the increase to £50 (£25 if paid within 3 weeks) on TfL services hasn't been mentioned: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/10025.aspx I wonder if mainline rail, regional trams, and the TW Metro etc will follow? Paul S Effectively the on-the-spot fine only increases by £5 with the more severe penalty effective if there is a delay in payment. The press release suggests this applies to the Overground network so presumably mainline rail operators will have to follow to avoid anomalies at joint terminals. The headline of a £50 fine is somewhat let down by the realisation that the increase is really only £5. Jonathan |
Penalty fare increase
Am Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:32:03 UTC, schrieb "Paul Scott"
auf uk.railway : Surprised the increase to £50 (£25 if paid within 3 weeks) on TfL services hasn't been mentioned: "This is an increase from the current level of £20 on the Buses, Tubes, Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and London Overground. " Well, the Conservatives act as one would expect. Hard, but ruthless. Cheers, L.W. |
Penalty fare increase
" Willms" wrote in message ... Am Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:32:03 UTC, schrieb "Paul Scott" auf uk.railway : Surprised the increase to £50 (£25 if paid within 3 weeks) on TfL services hasn't been mentioned: "This is an increase from the current level of £20 on the Buses, Tubes, Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and London Overground. " Well, the Conservatives act as one would expect. Hard, but ruthless. Nice try Lüko - the '2008 Act' would have commenced it's progress years ago... Paul |
Penalty fare increase
Lüko Willms wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:32:03 UTC, schrieb "Paul Scott" auf uk.railway : Surprised the increase to £50 (£25 if paid within 3 weeks) on TfL services hasn't been mentioned: "This is an increase from the current level of £20 on the Buses, Tubes, Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and London Overground. " Well, the Conservatives act as one would expect. Hard, but ruthless. Cheers, L.W. Brilliant! Does this mean that Brown and his Darling have gone, and Balls and Cooper are are no longer taking the **** by claiming double expenses for their housing? -- Moving things in still pictures! |
Penalty fare increase
On Oct 11, 6:58*pm, wrote:
On 11 Oct, 17:32, "Paul Scott" wrote: Surprised the increase to £50 (£25 if paid within 3 weeks) on TfL services hasn't been mentioned: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/10025.aspx I wonder if mainline rail, regional trams, and the TW Metro etc will follow? Paul S Effectively the on-the-spot fine only increases by £5 with the more severe penalty effective if there is a delay in payment. *The press release suggests this applies to the Overground network so presumably mainline rail operators will have to follow to avoid anomalies at joint terminals. The headline of a £50 fine is somewhat let down by the realisation that the increase is really only £5. Jonathan It's actually a removal of the right to appeal (useless though that was). Also, I note that the article is full of references to fare evasion, when as I understand it, if fare evasion is suspected, there should be a prosecution. So is this really about applying the penalty fare as a genuine fine, rather than the removal of a discount, in which case is it legal? It's like ASBOs, a lesser punishment, but one which can be applied without trial on the assumption of guilty till proven innocent. It's totally wrong. Fare evaders should be prosecuted, not let off with £50 "fares". (Although I suspect that fare evaders won't be touched at all, while the authorities concentrate on people caught out by Oyster anomalies. |
Penalty fare increase
|
Penalty fare increase
"Neil Williams" wrote there are plenty of stations (Milton Keynes Central is one, Euston another) where PFs apply to one TOC but not another. To determine what should be charged, "sneaky" questions are usually asked. If you're travelling between Victoria and Gatwick Airport, Southern trains are subject to a penalty fare regime, but you can buy tickets onboard Gatwick Express trains. Gatwick Express is now part of Southern. Peter |
Penalty fare increase
On 12 Oct, 12:41, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Neil Williams" wrote there are plenty of stations (Milton Keynes Central is one, Euston another) where PFs apply to one TOC but not another. *To determine what should be charged, "sneaky" questions are usually asked. If you're travelling between Victoria and Gatwick Airport, Southern trains are subject to a penalty fare regime, but you can buy tickets onboard Gatwick Express trains. Gatwick Express is now part of Southern. Peter Euston is a bit of a red herring given the split of platforms between gated 8-11 and the other ungated platforms. Milton Keynes can presumably be checked by the arrival time of trains (given that the steps from each platform are visible from the gate line). Similarly, between Gatwick and Redhill, penalty fares aren't going to be charged on-train on a FGW turbo as the service is not in the scheme - which means that a RPI isn't going to be on the train [1]. I would hope that anyone going to the barriers at Redhill without a ticket having travelled from Gatwick is charged a Penalty Fare regardless of which train they took. The whole justification behind penalty fares is the admission that on most commuter routes not all tickets are going to be checked. On Gatwick Express you are almost certain to have your ticket checked and can travel without buying one. On Southern, it is quite possible that the ticket won't be checked (although actually, Southern guards are quite good at checking on longer distance services since they aren't tied to a particular door release point - driver opens doors on a 377 and there is a point for the guard to close the doors in each carriage) so you have to buy it before travelling. Jonathan [1] On a number of occasions, I have seen a whole group of FGW RPIs carrying out a "ticketless travel survey" on these services but this doesn't involve Penalty Fares. |
Penalty fare increase
|
Penalty fare increase
On 11 Oct, 20:46, MIG wrote:
(Although I suspect that fare evaders won't be touched at all, while the authorities concentrate on people caught out by Oyster anomalies. Eh? They get charged four quid through an entirely separate 'minimum fare' scheme. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Penalty fare increase
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:18:23 -0700 (PDT), John B wrote:
(Although I suspect that fare evaders won't be touched at all, while the authorities concentrate on people caught out by Oyster anomalies. Eh? They get charged four quid through an entirely separate 'minimum fare' scheme. Not entirely separate - if you fail to touch in (or re-touch in after an OOSI, etc), you can still be given a Penalty Fare. |
Penalty fare increase
Paul Scott wrote:
Surprised the increase to £50 (£25 if paid within 3 weeks) on TfL services hasn't been mentioned: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/10025.aspx I wonder if mainline rail, regional trams, and the TW Metro etc will follow? It's already £80 on Metrolink in Manchester. -- Stephen |
Penalty fare increase
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:10:03 +0100, Stephen Farrow
wrote: It's already £80 on Metrolink in Manchester. With a discount for prompt payment, I presume? Good. It should be set at that kind of level (as the amounts concerned are similar to parking offences), but equally come with decriminalisation of fare dodging so the Penalty Fare doesn't just exist to penalise those making a mistake. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Penalty fare increase
Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:10:03 +0100, Stephen Farrow wrote: It's already £80 on Metrolink in Manchester. With a discount for prompt payment, I presume? Good. It should be set at that kind of level (as the amounts concerned are similar to parking offences), but equally come with decriminalisation of fare dodging so the Penalty Fare doesn't just exist to penalise those making a mistake. Metrolink call it a "Standard Fare", with levels as follows: 1st Offence: £10 on the spot, £15 within 21 days 2nd Offence: £20 on the spot, £30 within 21 days 3rd Offence: £40 on the spot, £60 within 21 days 4th Offence: £80 on the spot or prosecution The figures above are based on a rolling 12 month period. So if, for example: 1. You get stopped by a Metrolink revenue inspector on 31st October and no other offence is committed for a full twelve months, you will return to a clean record. 2. You get stopped by a Metrolink revenue inspector on 31st October and then again on the 3rd November in the same year you will be at the 2nd offence level and this will remain with you for a full twelve months before returning to a clean record. Cheers, Barry |
Penalty fare increase
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:43:20 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote: 4th Offence: £80 on the spot or prosecution Given that most people don't carry £80 in their wallet, do they march you to a cashpoint? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Penalty fare increase
On 15 Oct, 06:30, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:43:20 +0100, Barry Salter wrote: 4th Offence: £80 on the spot or prosecution Given that most people don't carry £80 in their wallet, do they march you to a cashpoint? Perhaps a debit card? What's to stop you from giving a false name and paying £10 cash? |
Penalty fare increase
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:13:05 +0100, Paul Weaver wrote
4th Offence: £80 on the spot or prosecution Given that most people don't carry £80 in their wallet, do they march you to a cashpoint? Perhaps a debit card? Many people don't carry them. |
Penalty fare increase
On Oct 11, 7:36*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: " Willms" wrote in message ... Am Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:32:03 UTC, *schrieb "Paul Scott" *auf uk.railway : Surprised the increase to £50 (£25 if paid within 3 weeks) on TfL services hasn't been mentioned: *"This is an increase from the current level of £20 on the Buses, Tubes, Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and London Overground. " *Well, the Conservatives act as one would expect. Hard, but ruthless. Nice try Lüko - the '2008 Act' would have commenced it's progress years ago... Paul January 2006 actually... http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...forlondon.html |
Penalty fare increase
wrote in message ... On Oct 11, 7:36 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Lüko Willms" wrote in message ... "This is an increase from the current level of £20 on the Buses, Tubes, Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and London Overground. " Well, the Conservatives act as one would expect. Hard, but ruthless. Nice try Lüko - the '2008 Act' would have commenced it's progress years ago... January 2006 actually... http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...forlondon.html Exactly - nearly 3 years. So it can't really be blamed on Boris, as Lüko was trying to imply, I think... Paul S |
Penalty fare increase
On 15 Oct, 10:19, Stimpy wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:13:05 +0100, Paul Weaver wrote 4th Offence: £80 on the spot or prosecution Given that most people don't carry £80 in their wallet, do they march you to a cashpoint? Perhaps a debit card? Many people don't carry them. Many people don't have £80. |
Penalty fare increase
On 30 Oct, 09:43, DavidCh0 wrote:
Many people don't have £80. I assume they will be prosecuted, then. If they can't afford the "time", they shouldn't do the crime. Neil |
Penalty fare increase
On Oct 30, 9:58*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On 30 Oct, 09:43, DavidCh0 wrote: Many people don't have £80. I assume they will be prosecuted, then. *If they can't afford the "time", they shouldn't do the crime. Neil If they are thought to be evading their fare, they should be prosecuted full stop. Lesser on-the-spot fines, penalty fares etc are all inappropriate in every situation. They only make sense if one assumes that the authorities don't really care about fare-evasion, but want to find a way of getting a bit of extra cash from a set of passengers which partly overlaps with the fare-evaders. |
Penalty fare increase
On 30 Oct, 10:14, MIG wrote:
If they are thought to be evading their fare, they should be prosecuted full stop. *Lesser on-the-spot fines, penalty fares etc are all inappropriate in every situation. They've tried that and found it costs thousands of pounds per case and doesn't have a high conviction rate. Also I don't think there's much public support for doing so, and certainly the press have a field day each time a case comes up (well, at least if the offender is white, middle class and has a good sob story). U |
Penalty fare increase
On 30 Oct, 11:15, Mr Thant wrote: On 30 Oct, 10:14, MIG wrote: If they are thought to be evading their fare, they should be prosecuted full stop. *Lesser on-the-spot fines, penalty fares etc are all inappropriate in every situation. They've tried that and found it costs thousands of pounds per case and doesn't have a high conviction rate. Also I don't think there's much public support for doing so, and certainly the press have a field day each time a case comes up (well, at least if the offender is white, middle class and has a good sob story). The burden of proof for a criminal conviction is of course "beyond reasonable doubt" - well, I dare say that doubt can be conjured up by those who wish for it. One rather suspects that the fare evaders who are more likely to be prosecuted are those who, on being caught out and confronted face-to-face by officialdom, subsequently decide to adopt an honest approach and confess their sins. The problem is trying to nail the others. |
Penalty fare increase
On Oct 30, 11:15*am, Mr Thant
wrote: On 30 Oct, 10:14, MIG wrote: If they are thought to be evading their fare, they should be prosecuted full stop. *Lesser on-the-spot fines, penalty fares etc are all inappropriate in every situation. They've tried that and found it costs thousands of pounds per case and doesn't have a high conviction rate. Also I don't think there's much public support for doing so, and certainly the press have a field day each time a case comes up (well, at least if the offender is white, middle class and has a good sob story). But if there's a low conviction rate when someone gets a proper hearing in court, is that really an argument for punishment without trial? I can't remember any sob stories about people found guilty in court though. The press stories are usually about people being hassled for extra money on trains. It's demanding money on the spot rather than prosecution that leads to press stories. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Because we have been unsuccessful at dealing with scumbags through proper legal processes, we punish a different bunch of people without a fair hearing. |
Penalty fare increase
On 30 Oct, 11:55, MIG wrote:
But if there's a low conviction rate when someone gets a proper hearing in court, is that really an argument for punishment without trial? Hang on - you can refuse a penalty fare and go to court, can't you? I can't remember any sob stories about people found guilty in court though. *The press stories are usually about people being hassled for extra money on trains. *It's demanding money on the spot rather than prosecution that leads to press stories. I'm talking about the "TfL wastes thousands prosecuting [photogenic sympathetic white-collar worker] over a 90p bus fare" type stories. (usually coupled with gripes about Oyster touching in, which I believe is a cause you're sympathetic too) U |
Penalty fare increase
On Oct 30, 12:04*pm, Mr Thant
wrote: On 30 Oct, 11:55, MIG wrote: But if there's a low conviction rate when someone gets a proper hearing in court, is that really an argument for punishment without trial? Hang on - you can refuse a penalty fare and go to court, can't you? I think that technically, you should only be issued a penalty fare if fare evasion isn't suspected, although the definition of fare evasion seems to be extended according the the TfL statement. But given that a penalty fare is technically a fare, you can be prosecuted for evasion of the penalty fare if you refuse to pay. I hadn't seen that as an option presented on the spot exactly. I can't remember any sob stories about people found guilty in court though. *The press stories are usually about people being hassled for extra money on trains. *It's demanding money on the spot rather than prosecution that leads to press stories. I'm talking about the "TfL wastes thousands prosecuting [photogenic sympathetic white-collar worker] over a 90p bus fare" type stories. (usually coupled with gripes about Oyster touching in, which I believe is a cause you're sympathetic too) I do have objections to Oyster, but they are only relevant if you agree with me (which many don't) that Oyster unresolved journey fares etc are penalty fares. I don't know if my objections to Oyster rules have any bearing on potential prosecution cases. |
Penalty fare increase
On Oct 30, 12:04*pm, Mr Thant
wrote: On 30 Oct, 11:55, MIG wrote: But if there's a low conviction rate when someone gets a proper hearing in court, is that really an argument for punishment without trial? Hang on - you can refuse a penalty fare and go to court, can't you? I can't remember any sob stories about people found guilty in court though. *The press stories are usually about people being hassled for extra money on trains. *It's demanding money on the spot rather than prosecution that leads to press stories. I'm talking about the "TfL wastes thousands prosecuting [photogenic sympathetic white-collar worker] over a 90p bus fare" type stories. (usually coupled with gripes about Oyster touching in, which I believe is a cause you're sympathetic too) Oh I remember what I was thinking of in a comment upthread. In a week where, due to a non-functioning machine, I had a zone 1 - 2 paper travelcard, I was thinking of going to Rickmansworth. That should have cost me £2 return PAYG from the boundary. If I touched in and out at Baker Street I would pay £4 too much overall. If I went through the Baker Street barrier with the paper travelcard and touched only at Rickmansworth I would pay £8 too much. If I got off at Wembley Park and waited for the next train while touching in, I would pay the correct fare but would be without a valid ticket if gripped between Willesden Green and Wembley Park, and then at risk of the full penalty fare (the relevant bit, but my most likely plan). If I got the Jubilee, got off at Willesden Green etc, I would not be at risk but would hugely increase my journey time. And all that hassle because the machine wasn't working and TfL won't issue reasonably priced extensions to holders of paper travelcards. |
Penalty fare increase
Hang on - you can refuse a penalty fare and go to court, can't you? No. When an inspector finds you with an invalid / no ticket he has two options. 1. He thinks that you are deliberately avoiding the fare. He will not issue you with a penalty fare but report your details to the prosecution office who decide if there is enough evidence to take you to court. 2. He decides to issue you with a penalty fare. Once he has gone down this route then you cannot be taken to court for fare evasion as this would be considered double jepody So you can see that is either court or penalty fare but not both. In the penalty fare case you can appeal to an independent adjudicator but you will not get a criminal record whatever the outcome. |
Penalty fare increase
On 30 Oct, 14:38, wrote:
2. He decides to issue you with a penalty fare. *Once he has gone down this route then you cannot be taken to court for fare evasion as this would be considered double jepody And if you refuse to pay? I was under the impression you'd be done for evading the penalty fare. U |
Penalty fare increase
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 05:26:05 -0700 (PDT),
MIG wrote: I can't remember any sob stories about people found guilty in court though. *The press stories are usually about people being hassled for extra money on trains. *It's demanding money on the spot rather than prosecution that leads to press stories. I'm talking about the "TfL wastes thousands prosecuting [photogenic sympathetic white-collar worker] over a 90p bus fare" type stories. (usually coupled with gripes about Oyster touching in, which I believe is a cause you're sympathetic too) I do have objections to Oyster, but they are only relevant if you agree with me (which many don't) that Oyster unresolved journey fares etc are penalty fares. I don't know if my objections to Oyster rules have any bearing on potential prosecution cases. My fear with Oyster is that it's almost impossible to work out why it goes wrong when it does. I've had three failures, one was definitely an oyster problem because it let me through the barrier but didn't register the entry (I've also witnessed this happen with someone else not registering an exit but opening the barrier). One might have been my mistake, again an entry didn't register, but I was using the manual barrier. One was because I didn't understand how oyster worked - there were problems with the manual barrier at Watford Junction so I'd been using the thing at the bottom of platform 9 to touch in an out. When the manual barrier was fixed I touched out at the bottom of platform 9 and then again (because I was asked to) at the manual barrier which registered as an entry. I've also had a huge number of missing entries on the online journey history. The balance has ended up correct but entries or exits (or both) are completely missing. I have wondered about building a little device to interrogate the oyster card so you can tell whether an entry or exit has actually been registered on the card. But that's going to take a lot of round tuits that I can't see me having in the forseeable future. Tim. -- God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light. http://www.woodall.me.uk/ |
Penalty fare increase
On Oct 30, 2:44*pm, Mr Thant
wrote: On 30 Oct, 14:38, wrote: 2. He decides to issue you with a penalty fare. *Once he has gone down this route then you cannot be taken to court for fare evasion as this would be considered double jepody And if you refuse to pay? I was under the impression you'd be done for evading the penalty fare. That's my impression too, but not that you'd be faced with an explicit option on the spot. |
Penalty fare increase
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 03:14:27 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote: They only make sense if one assumes that the authorities don't really care about fare-evasion, but want to find a way of getting a bit of extra cash from a set of passengers which partly overlaps with the fare-evaders. Certainly on the mainline, though, it only overlaps so far as people who aren't paying enough attention. A PF cannot be issued for a ticket that would be valid other than that it's the wrong time of day - the only thing that can be done there is an excess. It might well be the same for a route issue as well. That leaves people who travel beyond their destination, with no ticket or in the wrong class, all of whom should really be paying more attention. The only one I'd think needs leniency as well (but doesn't currently get it) is someone travelling on a season ticket that's one day out of date from a station with no barriers, as that would be quite easily done. Perhaps a way to handle that in a sensible world would be to issue a PF which would be refunded against the renewal of the ticket, if this was to be done that day. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Penalty fare increase
|
Penalty fare increase
On Oct 30, 9:30*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 03:14:27 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: They only make sense if one assumes that the authorities don't really care about fare-evasion, but want to find a way of getting a bit of extra cash from a set of passengers which partly overlaps with the fare-evaders. Certainly on the mainline, though, it only overlaps so far as people who aren't paying enough attention. *A PF cannot be issued for a ticket that would be valid other than that it's the wrong time of day - the only thing that can be done there is an excess. *It might well be the same for a route issue as well. *That leaves people who travel beyond their destination, with no ticket or in the wrong class, all of whom should really be paying more attention. Isn't that because penalty fare areas generally don't correspond to routes on which the only affordable fares are limited to specific trains? In both cases there is a high "fare" which people wouldn't normally pay, and which they have to pay when caught out, but it'd defined in a different way. The only one I'd think needs leniency as well (but doesn't currently get it) is someone travelling on a season ticket that's one day out of date from a station with no barriers, as that would be quite easily done. *Perhaps a way to handle that in a sensible world would be to issue a PF which would be refunded against the renewal of the ticket, if this was to be done that day. I am not in favour of leniency as such, but I'd like to decriminalise day-to-day travel. Ticketing systems that are a test of ordinary folks' knowledge of complicated regulations and where ten times as many staff check tickets as sell them do not do anything for the competitiveness of the railways. |
Penalty fare increase
In message , at 21:30:34 on Thu,
30 Oct 2008, Neil Williams remarked: They only make sense if one assumes that the authorities don't really care about fare-evasion, but want to find a way of getting a bit of extra cash from a set of passengers which partly overlaps with the fare-evaders. Certainly on the mainline, though, it only overlaps so far as people who aren't paying enough attention. A PF cannot be issued for a ticket that would be valid other than that it's the wrong time of day - the only thing that can be done there is an excess. It might well be the same for a route issue as well. That leaves people who travel beyond their destination, with no ticket or in the wrong class, all of whom should really be paying more attention. What about people travelling with the wrong ToC? [eg on a NXEC train with a Hull-trains-only ticket] Or do you count that as a "Route issue"? In that sort of case, is the excess going to be any less than the cost of a whole new ticket? -- Roland Perry |
Penalty fare increase
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:25:17 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote: You will get a criminal record if it is successfully prosecuted as a theft offence. It is IIRC when you are prosecuted for breaching an appropriate byelaw that you don't get a criminal record. Fare-dodging isn't theft, as it doesn't deprive someone of the travel you have "taken". Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Penalty fare increase
Neil Williams wrote:
Fare-dodging isn't theft, as it doesn't deprive someone of the travel you have "taken". What I find curious is that you can end up with a criminal record for fare-dodging, but not for avoiding parking charges. |
Penalty fare increase
On Oct 30, 3:38*pm, wrote:
2. He decides to issue you with a penalty fare. *Once he has gone down this route then you cannot be taken to court for fare evasion as this would be considered double jepody So you can see that is either court or penalty fare but not both. *In the penalty fare case you can appeal to an independent adjudicator but you will not get a criminal record whatever the outcome. Isn't it actually the case that in 2. you can't be taken to court because you've bought a valid ticket? Isn't that what a penalty fare is - a hugely overpriced single ticket, that the rail companies "dress up" as a fine? All you're actaully doing is buying an on-board single. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:53 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk