| Tube strike in pictures: travel misery caused by London Underground industrial action Travel misery caused by London Underground industrial action. telegraph.co.uk |
'May God bless her and all who sail in her' The Queen officially names Cunard's new Queen Elizabeth cruise ship in Southampton. bbc.co.uk |
Car ploughs into nightclub crowd Twenty three people are injured, two of them seriously, as a car mounts a pavement outside a nightclub in Greater Manchester. bbc.co.uk |
How train firms' fare-dodging policies turn commuters into criminals Hardline enforcement means passengers who innocently board a train without a ticket can step off facing a day in courtAmid the timetables and rail replacement service notices at London's Euston station you will find a list of passengers, complete with addresses and ages, who have been found guilty in a magistrates court of fare dodging. It is part of the line's naming and shaming policy.However, while few would condone deliberate fare evasion, it is impossible to know how many of the people on that list are hardened criminals with no intention of paying, and how many have fallen foul of what some have dubbed "railway clampers".John Wilson, whose ordeal is outlined in thise case study, told Guardian Money about his six-month court battle against fare-evasion charges, following a run-in with a "revenue protection officer", AKA "revenue protection inspector" – a ticket inspector in simple terms. It is their job to check people have a ticket, and give penalty fares to those who don't.Wilson claims these RPOs/RPIs "are a law unto themselves. They make up the rules as they go along, and rely on people being scared of them, and of having a criminal record".However, train operator London Midland probably speaks for many rail companies when it says: "The vast majority of our passengers support us taking a firm but fair approach to fare evaders, so that the honest majority are not subsidising those who choose to avoid their fare."Wilson is arguably just one victim of a system that both a London passenger organisation and a committee of MPs have indicated needs to be fairer. The convicted passengers on the name-and-shame list may be there because, unlike Wilson, they could not afford legal representation.In 2008, a House of Commons transport select committee waded into the debate about fare evasion, saying there was confusion about how much money was lost as a result of deliberate fare-dodging, and how much was because of a failure to give passengers the chance to buy the correct ticket. "Too much revenue is being lost through a failure of the transport operators to provide the appropriate ticket sales facilities, to sell tickets on board, and to carry out basic checks. This is not the same as fare evasion. It is simply non-collection of fares," it said.The committee questioned train operators' estimates of fare evasion – highlighting rail group First with its "conflicting figures of £40m and £15m" – and said the appeals procedures for passengers wishing to challenge a penalty fare "are not sufficiently independent", adding: "The consequences of being accused of fare-dodging can be serious, and it is important that the procedures are just and rigorous."There is certainly a lot of inconsistency between railway companies. While Southern prosecuted Wilson for travelling in a first-class carriage, London Midland (part of the same Govia group as Southern) says: "We do not prosecute those who have mistakenly gone into first class. RPIs and conductors are trained to use discretion, so they would allow a passenger to leave first class or pay the balance."Southern says that in this situation, if a conductor approaches a passenger, they will advise the passenger that "he or she is in the incorrect part of the train, and give them the opportunity to move or to upgrade to a first-class ticket. Revenue protection officers have a different brief, as they are permitted to impose a penalty fare if they believe the passenger is in first-class accommodation when there is an opportunity to travel in standard class". Southern adds that all employees use "discretion when appropriate".There are other big differences, too. Southern's RPOs earn commission from penalty fares (up to 5% of revenue gained), while London Midland revenue protection employees do not receive commission. Similarly, Southern's RPOs are not vetted through the criminal-record checking system, while London Midland's are.Southern says its officers' commission on penalty fares "is no incentive to issue these above any other form of revenue sales, as RPOs also earn commission from ticket sales".London TravelWatch, an independent body that examines passenger complaints as part of its remit to represent the capital's travelling public, says in its 2010 annual review that around 10% of the appeals it investigates are about penalty fares – "a figure which has concerned us for a long time".The Department for Transport ordered a review of the penalty fares system following London Travelwatch's plea that it "needed to be fairer. We argued passengers should be given a reasonable chance to buy the correct ticket before, during and after their journey, and that the appeals system had to be more transparent and independent from the rail industry".The passenger body said it is "not acceptable for a passenger to be issued with a penalty fare in circumstances identical to those in which this has not been done on a previous occasion."This can happen either because of inconsistent application of the rules, or because not all ticket inspectors have received the training required to be qualified to issue penalty fares."Consumer rightsConsumer affairsRail transportTransportTony Leveneguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Privacy body to re-examine Google Britain's privacy watchdog is to look again at what personal information internet giant Google gathered from private wi-fi networks. bbc.co.uk |