Fare Evasion or an Honest Mistake

Ticket to Court: How Honest Rail Passengers Are Unfairly Criminalised

Train operators are imposing unjust penalties on passengers for simple and often genuine ticketing errors. A comprehensive inquiry from the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has found Britain’s fare system to be bewilderingly complex, urging rail companies to cease their "disproportionate" actions against travellers. Prompted by cases where individuals faced prosecution over trivial sums, the regulator's review calls for urgent reform to create a fairer and more consistent system for everyone. This investigation reveals a system heavily weighted against the passenger, where simple oversights can lead to threats of court action and significant financial demands.

A System Weighted Against the Passenger

Findings from the ORR, released in June 2025, paint a damning picture of the current state of rail fare enforcement. The regulator discovered significant inconsistencies in how different train companies handle revenue protection, leading to widely different outcomes for passengers with similar issues. It identified a clear need for better information to help people buy the correct ticket in the first place. The investigation's conclusions also highlight the vulnerability of travellers who make guileless mistakes, exposing them to potentially severe consequences. The regulatory structure has become so convoluted that it appears to favour the industry, leaving individuals at a distinct disadvantage.

The Human Cost of a Complex System

The human impact of these excessive penalties is profound. Sam Williamson, a 22-year-old passenger, faced potential court action over a mere £1.90 railcard discount. The saving was not applicable prior to 10am on weekdays, except during July and August, a niche rule most commuters would not know. He remarked that this tiny error could have resulted in fines amounting to hundreds of pounds and a criminal record. His experience highlights a system that feels convoluted and unforgiving, trapping people who have no intention of avoiding their fare. His situation, which was ultimately dismissed, is a stark example of the problem.

Intimidation and Exploitation

Another passenger, Susie, shared an intimidating experience. She faced accusations of trying to evade a fare and was fined £57 for what she described as an authentic, unintentional error involving a ticket that was only 55p cheaper than the correct one. An employee warned they would contact law enforcement if she failed to settle the penalty immediately. She later discovered she legally had a three-week period to make the payment. The incident occurred in the late evening, leaving her feeling threatened and exploited. This kind of aggressive enforcement for a minor, unintentional error demonstrates the power imbalance between operators and passengers.

The Perils of Technology and Expired Railcards

The experience of James Bissell shows how technology can fail passengers. The 27-year-old purchased a ticket with a £1.30 railcard discount using a popular app that stored a digital copy of his card. An inspector on a service with South Western Railway informed him the railcard was no longer valid. He never got an alert about the expiry, and the app still allowed the discounted purchase. Despite his full cooperation, he faced a £133.30 charge, accompanied by warnings of a £1,000 penalty or imprisonment if he failed to pay. He believes the legal action was excessively severe for a basic lack of attention.

Image Credit - Freepik

A Call for Consistency and Fairness

James Bissell's attempt to resolve the issue has been met with silence. Six weeks after challenging the fine and lodging a complaint, he had still not received a response. He feels the current process turns law-abiding individuals with no prior offences into offenders. This lack of clear and timely communication from rail companies is a recurring theme. The ORR’s findings support this view, emphasising the need for consistent treatment of passengers and a process that can distinguish between honest blunders and deliberate fare evasion.

Urgent Need for Reform

The Office of Rail and Road’s inquiry into fare evasion handling was a direct response to growing public concern. Stories of passengers facing prosecution over minor sums prompted the government to commission the review. The regulator's report concluded that the current system urgently needs reform to better serve passengers, train operators, and taxpayers. It found that while fare evasion is a major issue costing the railway millions, the safeguards to ensure fair treatment for passengers have not kept pace with increased enforcement efforts.

Inconsistent Approaches and Unfair Outcomes

A central finding of the ORR investigation was the "significant inconsistency" in revenue protection across Britain's rail network. This inconsistency results in vastly different outcomes for travellers who make similar mistakes. For example, one passenger faced potential legal proceedings for mistakenly choosing a 16-25 railcard discount when they held a 26-30 card, even though both offer the exact same discount. This case was only dropped after an area politician became involved, highlighting how arbitrary enforcement can be. Such disparities undermine passenger confidence and create a sense of injustice.

The Challenge of Distinguishing Intent

The report acknowledges the difficulty rail staff face in distinguishing honest blunders from deliberate fare avoidance. A forgotten railcard or a simple ticketing error can be an honest mistake. However, these reasons can also be used by individuals trying to underpay. The ORR stated that the complexity of the fare and ticketing framework makes this challenge even greater. The system itself is a contributing factor to the problem, creating confusion that can lead to unintentional errors. This complexity puts front-line staff in a difficult position when assessing a passenger's intent.

Normalisation of Fare Evasion

The inquiry also unearthed a worrying trend described by railway workers: fare evasion is becoming "normalised within certain traveller demographics." This makes the issue "progressively harder to manage." While the focus of the ORR report is on protecting travellers who have made a genuine error, it also stresses that rigorous action should be taken against individuals who deliberately try to cheat the railway system. The challenge for the industry is to create a system that is robust against deliberate evasion but fair to those who have made a simple error.

A System Weighted Towards Industry

Stephanie Tobyn, the ORR’s strategy director, stated that the legal and enforcement framework has become "increasingly complex and appears to favour the industry." This imbalance leaves some travellers who make guileless mistakes vulnerable to unduly severe consequences. Her comments underscore the core problem: the process is not built with the passenger's perspective in mind. The complexity benefits the operators, who can enforce a web of intricate rules, while ordinary travellers are left to navigate it at their peril, facing severe consequences for minor slip-ups.

Image Credit - Freepik

Acknowledging the Problem

The Rail Delivery Group (RDG), an organization that speaks for train companies, acknowledges that the industry needs to improve. A spokesperson admitted that they could be more transparent and achieve better uniformity nationwide. While highlighting that fare avoidance deprives the sector of an estimated £400 million annually, the group welcomed the ORR's recommendations. The RDG stated it would work to implement the suggestions as part of its own plans to create a simpler, better-value fares system. This response indicates a willingness to address the issues, but passengers will judge them on their actions, not their words.

The Government's Vision: Great British Railways

The government has responded to the crisis by outlining a vision for wholesale reform. Lord Peter Hendy, the Rail Minister, condemned what he termed "ham-fisted prosecutions" that unfairly affect travellers who made simple mistakes. He confirmed plans to tackle the problem by making the ticketing process simpler and, crucially, by creating blueprints for Great British Railways (GBR). GBR is set to be a new, single public body that will manage most passenger services and infrastructure, ending the fragmentation of the privatised system. This represents the most significant shake-up of the railways in decades.

Ending Fragmentation

Great British Railways aims to act as a "single guiding mind" for the network. This new public body will own the infrastructure, receive fare revenue, and set most fares and timetables. The goal is to create a unified system where passengers are no longer forced to navigate the websites and rules of 14 different operators. By bringing track and train together, the government hopes to put passengers first, rebuild trust, and run the railway for the long-term benefit of its users and the taxpayer. This move is designed to address the deep-rooted issues caused by a fragmented system.

The Path to Public Ownership

The journey towards GBR has already begun. The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act received Royal Assent in late 2024, providing the legal foundation for renationalisation. The government has announced that the first operators will be brought into public ownership in 2025. South Western Railway's services transferred in May 2025, with c2c following in July and Greater Anglia in the autumn. The government expects the programme to continue with services from one operator transferring roughly every three months, with most under public control by 2029.

Simplifying Fares and Ticketing

A key promise of the Great British Railways project is the simplification of fares and ticketing. The government plans for GBR to gradually replace individual operator websites with a single, high-quality website and app for all customers. This move aims to eliminate the confusion that currently leads to so many unintentional errors. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport has urged the government to end the jargon and create an easy-to-understand system, a call the GBR plans appear to answer. The focus will be on clarity and value for money for the British public.

A New Passenger Watchdog

Alongside the creation of GBR, the government plans to establish a new, independent passenger watchdog. This body will be given powers to hold the new railway leadership to account, ensuring it delivers for passengers. The watchdog will focus on addressing traveller's biggest concerns and making sure people are treated fairly. This reform is part of a broader plan to sweep away decades of failure and create a railway that people can trust. For passengers who have felt powerless against large train companies, an empowered watchdog could be a significant step forward.

Image Credit - Freepik

An Independent System with Flaws

In 2018, new regulations were introduced to create an independent appeals process for penalty fares. The goal was to offer greater protection to travellers who have made a genuine error, allowing them to challenge a penalty with a committee not connected to the rail companies. The system involves a multi-stage appeal. However, an investigation by the passenger watchdog Transport Focus found that the process is a long way from perfect. It identified problems with a lack of discretion, poor quality responses, and a lack of transparency, suggesting the process still has a long way to go.

The "Stop the Clock" Policy

One key feature of the appeals process is the "stop the clock" policy. When a passenger lodges an appeal, the 21-day deadline for paying the penalty fare is paused until a decision is reached. This is designed to give people time to challenge a decision without facing an escalating charge. However, many passengers might not know about this right. Susie, the passenger threatened with police action, was instructed to settle the amount immediately, a clear misrepresentation of the rules. This highlights the need for better communication and training for railway workers.

The Challenge of Proving an Honest Mistake

For a passenger, the appeals process can be daunting. The burden of proof often falls on the individual to demonstrate that they made a genuine error. They have a three-week window from the date the notice was issued to submit an appeal in writing. As one Reddit user described, this can be incredibly frustrating when a technical glitch with a mobile app prevents a valid ticket from being displayed. The user faced an accusation of buying the ticket after being stopped, despite having an email receipt. This experience shows how a passenger's word can be dismissed, even with evidence.

When Appeals Fail

If a first appeal is rejected, a passenger can escalate it to a second, and then a final, independent panel. However, the Transport Focus report highlights cases where this process has failed. One passenger, who had to rush a pregnant relative to hospital, missed the appeal deadline due to the stressful circumstances and was initially shown no leniency. Another struggled to navigate the appeals website, which was unclear. These examples show that even with an independent process in place, the system can be inflexible and difficult for ordinary people to use effectively.

The Threat of Prosecution

For many, the most intimidating aspect of a fine is the threat of prosecution. Some passengers have agreed to pay unfair settlements just to avoid the risk of a criminal conviction. Solicitors have noted that many people who are taken to court have done nothing wrong, but are penalised for issues like broken ticket machines at stations. A conviction for fare avoidance, even a wrongful one, can have a devastating impact on a person's life, affecting job prospects and carrying a significant stigma.

A Call for Discretion and Clarity

Ultimately, passenger groups and regulators agree that the system needs more discretion. Transport Focus has called for the industry to show understanding when passengers have not intended to evade a fare. The ORR's recommendations echo this, calling for an escalated approach that focuses on behavioural change for minor errors, while reserving harsh penalties for persistent, intentional fare avoidance. Achieving this balance requires not only procedural changes but a cultural shift within the railway sector towards treating passengers fairly and with understanding. It is a long-overdue change for Britain's railway.