UK: Secretary of State for Transport Louise Haigh has asked the Office of Rail & Road to undertake an independent review of the way train operators tackle suspected fare evasion.
Appearing before the House of Commons Transport Select Committee on November 13, Haigh said ‘we’ve seen some egregious examples of fare prosecutions, and while fare evasion is totally unacceptable and we’ll continue to pursue it, we need to be clear that where people have made genuine mistakes they shouldn’t be prosecuted. And so as “passenger-in-chief”, I’ve asked the ORR to investigate that on my behalf.’
The review will look at the communication of terms and conditions, enforcement practices and when prosecution is an appropriate step. It will seek input from legal and industry specialists as well as passenger representatives.
It follows widespread media reports about situations where the Department for Transport said ‘a disproportionate approach might have been taken to those making a genuine mistake’.
The announcement was welcomed by independent watchdog Transport Focus, which commented that ‘passengers have told us about how confusing the current ticketing system is. People who have made an innocent mistake should be treated with understanding and not immediately assumed to be guilty.
‘We also know fare evasion costs the railway hundreds of millions of pounds every year, money which could be better used to improve services for passengers. Positive action on revenue protection with a focus on ensuring penalties are given only to those who deserve them will help build trust and confidence in the railway.’
Nathan Seymour-Hyde, a partner at law firm Reeds Solicitors, said ’this review is badly needed and will hopefully yield a simpler system, where unintentional ticket offences can more easily be avoided. However, whilst the stated aim of treating innocent mistakes with understanding is well-intentioned, it fails to appreciate the practical reality. Someone’s intent is not always entirely clear and even a very minor ticket infraction can be part of a wider pattern of fare avoidance. In these cases, further investigation by the train company is often merited to come to the right conclusion.’
