Great Western Railway - higher level than usual for fares fines?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From the Somerset County Gazette

Two men's train trip should have totalled ^12.90 - Fined ^1,600 after pair dodge paying fare

[Chris from Nailsea]

Erm ... hang on a minute! 

Firstly, there's actually no suggestion they were travelling together - so a group save could not have been available, just for example! 

For the full story:

Two men's train trip should have totalled ^12.90 - Fined ^1,600 after pair dodge paying fare


Two men's train fares should have totalled ^12.90 - why've they been charged ^1,600?

Two men caught trying to dodge paying the fare for two short train journeys have had the book thrown at them.

Brian Islam, 48, of South Street, Taunton, has been fined ^440 fine for travelling without a ticket.

He has also been ordered by Taunton Magistrates' Courts to pay, ^4.90 compensation - the amount the ticket would have cost - ^44 victim surcharge, ^160 costs and a ^150 criminal courts charge.

Jamie Waygood, 20, of Milton Road, Taunton, was fined ^440 fine, ^8 compensation, ^44 victim surcharge, ^160 costs and a ^150 criminal courts charge.

So, the amount payable to the railways is ^12.90, plus two fines (one each) of ^440 for 'ticketless travel' - the rest of that headline-grabbing ^1,600 is court fees, costs and victim surcharges. 

[broadgage]

Presumably the victim surcharge also goes to the railway ? As the railway was the victim in this case. Would the railway also receive some of the costs ? towards their legal expenses.

[JayMac]

The Victim Surcharge doesn't go directly to the 'victim' of the particular crime. The surcharges (ranging from ^15-^120 depending on sentence) are pooled and then distributed to service providers who provide support to victims and witnesses to crime.

A body corporate such as a Train Operating Company is unlikely to meet criteria for support from these service providers so won't get anything from Victim Surcharges.

Costs and compensation (and occasionally punitive damages), where appropriate to the case, can of course still be awarded to TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company).

Depending on the legal legwork in these two cases it's possible GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) made a financial loss in prosecuting. However, TOCs have in house prosecution teams, so it can be regarded as a cost to the business. Economies of scale are achieved by having multiple cases held in one court on one day. First Group also achieve economies by having just one railway prosecution team, based in Reading, which acts for all their TOCs.

First Group are however realising that even these economies of scale are not enough. They've started resorting to the quasi legal 'Admin Charge' (pioneered by Northern Trains) form of penalty. Someone accused by them of fare evasion (RoRA or Byelaws) may be offered to chance to pay an Administration Charge, in addition to any fare owed, to prevent court action. Guilty or innocent. Essentially, pay or we will prosecute. Even the innocent (or those guilty only through ignorance of the railways complex fares system) may think it better to pay this penalty rather than do court.

That particular process doesn't sit easy with me. But then I'm also not a fan of body corporates having their own prosecution units.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Posting here in a personal capacity, rather than as an administrator on the Coffee Shop forum: I agree with bignosemac's comments above. 

[RobT]

More heavy fines for fare evasion on FGW^▸ (First Great Western)/GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3401138/First-Great-Western-train-passenger-fined-767-courts-tried-dodge-paying-ticket-cost-just-2-70.html

[ChrisB]

Great picture again (not)....SWT^▸ (South West Trains) this time!

[PhilWakely]

Great picture again (not)....SWT^▸ (South West Trains) this time!

    
The picture I see is of an early First blue liveried HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)), so for the pedant it is still technically not a GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) train, but certainly 'almost' relevant .

[Adelante_CCT]

Great picture again (not)....SWT^▸ (South West Trains) this time!

    
The picture I see is of an early First blue liveried HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)), so for the pedant it is still technically not a GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) train, but certainly 'almost' relevant .

Just to clarify, there are 2 pictures within the article, one of the early first hst whilst the one further down the page is of the inside of a SWT train, therefore both quoted comments are technically correct

[PhilWakely]

From the Exeter Express and Echo

Devon passengers fined in First Great Western Railway fares blitz

Many Devon residents have been slapped with fines after not paying their train fare.

Nineteen rail passengers have been fined more than ^11,000 for not buying tickets to ride.

Most were taking local First Great Western trains on journeys around south Devon when they were caught.

None of them made the trip to court and the cases against them were proved in their absence at Torbay magistrates court ^ where the huge fines and costs were imposed.

Coner Stuart, 19, from Chudleigh, Devon. And Richard Steel, 41, from Newton Abbot, Devon, did not buy their ^3.60p tickets ^ and ended up being fined ^647.60p.

Luke Friar, 30, from Dartmouth, Devon, did not pay for his ^235.95p fare and ended up with a bill for ^879.95p.

Sarah Williams, 38, from Torquay, didn't pay ^11.60p for her ticket and was landed with a bill for ^655.60p.

A GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) spokesman said:"Fare evasion costs the rail industry about ^240 million a year.

"While it would be inappropriate to comment on individual cases suffice it to say that we have to follow due process and always attempt to deal with matters without court action.

"However, should individuals not respond to us the matter is referred to the criminal court process.

"Where a penalty fare is issued the passenger is written to and offered the opportunity to pay or to appeal the fine; a subsequent reminder is sent, and then it is largely taken out of our hands and into the court process.

"To be consistent for all those travelling the rules are the same regardless of the fare amount and are determined by national conditions of carriage.

"It is the Courts decision and we would respect that decision. I think it is also worth pointing out that the 'fine' in these instances is determined by the court, not by any train operator.

"Fare evasion costs the rail industry about ^240 million a year. To make sure that customers who pay for rail travel are not unfairly subsidising those who choose to avoid paying passengers are required to purchase a ticket prior to boarding a service from station ticket offices or from the available ticket vending machines."

[JayMac]

Very disingenuous to say that the matter is largely taken out of the hands of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) if no reply to correspondence is received.

It is still GWR who go ahead with the prosecution.

[ChrisB]

That's why they used the word 'largely'

[JayMac]

'Largely' implies that in nearly all cases the decision to proceed is out of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)'s hands.

In actuality it's 100% of cases where the decision to proceed rests solely with GWR.

[bobm]

As a minor point when did the Exeter Express and Echo style guide change and require their journalists to put a 'p' as well as ^ sign?

[Red Squirrel]

As a minor point when did the Exeter Express and Echo style guide change and require their journalists to put a 'p' as well as ^ sign?

Haven't got used to decimal currency yet in Devon - some of em are still trading piglets for pints of scrump...