Seeking help and advice....Appealing a penalty

[Irisbeag]

Hi there,
I was travelling last weekend from country town to Dublin. Asked for a return ticket and paid full price (€47) for return on last Thursday (20th Feb). I was visiting family and planned to return on Sunday.
I never asked specifically for a 3 day or open return, but never realised I was issued with a one day return only (I was arriving to Dublin at 12noon so would not have had much time!!). I definitely did not try to avail of any form of 'one day return special offer', since I paid equivalent to full price.

Anyhow, I genuinely never realised my ticket had expired on the day I bought it, and believed I had a valid ticket. I was shocked when I was tackled on the train and issued with a penalty notice.

Has anyone had similar experience or can advise how best to try to get this cancelled.

The treatment received from the I.R. staff on the train was appalling quite frankly.....I was treated like a criminal while trying to get him to understand it was a genuine mistake. Customer Service indeed!! Don't think I will ever travel by train again!

Appreciate any suggestions or help.
This is a genuine case I assure you

[Mark Gleeson]

Welcome

Lets focus on the issue, your grievance is with the ticket sold.

Tickets are normally issued as day return unless otherwise requested (day return is the only return type universally available for all routes, all stations). I'm guessing Thurles - Dublin? (no discounted tickets on a Friday)

At time of purchase you should have checked the ticket issued was correct. The valid to/from dates are printed on all tickets. That's Irish Rail's get out clause as its in the T&C's that it is the passengers responsibility to confirm they have been issued the correct ticket.

It is unclear as to what ticket you actually requested. The complaint here is you were not issued with the ticket which matched "your expressed need" and that is a specific obligation in Irish Rail's customer charter. Expressed needs is the key here, is what you asked for.


The booking office staff should have confirmed your intentions, they did not it appears. That's where you have a claim that not attempt was made to determine your "need". That really is your only avenue of complaint.


From a legal point of view you did not have a valid ticket at time of inspection, that's a penalty fare and the official issuing it was completely correct to do so. There is no negotiation when the fine is issued. You no doubt object to this, but it is the law and we cannot challenge the lawful actions of the official.

You could argue "no intent to defraud" as you had a ticket, but Irish Rail are on firm ground as no valid ticket held.

[Irisbeag]

Many thanks Mark

That is what my thinking was.....I am hoping someone within Irish Rail is willing to listen :eek:

[Mark Gleeson]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but no easy way around this.

Start with the customer charter

At the Station Ticket Office
We will try to sell you the best ticket to meet your travel needs.

So there is a clear failure there.

As to the on train/issuing of the fine, nothing we can do as the offical was 100% correct in his actions.

[haddockman]

If someone rocks up to the window and asks for a return to Dublin they should be asked what type of return they need rather than just banging out a day return by default.

[Eddie]

I see this story made the Irish Times yesterday.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/pricewatch-readers-queries-1.1733879

Given that the day return is apparently the same cost as a monthly return, I think it's bad form that Irish Rail don't waive this fine. Clearly there was no intent to defraud.

I suspect they will lose more in lost custom from the negative publicity.

[Mark Gleeson]

Open return is 52.50, day return is 47.00.

[James Howard]

I also feel it is bad form. There is obviously no intent to defraud here - who would risk a fine to save a fiver on a 50 euro ticket.

There is an opportunity for Irish Rail to learn something here - that their sales staff should communicate better with their customers in order to sell them the product they need. But Irish Rail completely failed to learn anything as their knee-jerk reaction is to blame the customer.

The end result is the customer and probably most of her friends and relatives will never use the train again, and everyone wonders why rail is in decline.

[berneyarms]

I also feel it is bad form. There is obviously no intent to defraud here - who would risk a fine to save a fiver on a 50 euro ticket.

There is an opportunity for Irish Rail to learn something here - that their sales staff should communicate better with their customers in order to sell them the product they need. But Irish Rail completely failed to learn anything as their knee-jerk reaction is to blame the customer.

The end result is the customer and probably most of her friends and relatives will never use the train again, and everyone wonders why rail is in decline.

The odd part of this is whenever I have asked for a return ticket at a booking office, the clerk has always asked when I was returning.

It's an automatic question, given it defines which ticket ought to be sold - and it is very odd that (apparently) the clerk did not ask on this occasion.

[James Howard]

I wouldn't know the likelihood of being asked for a ticket type as I haven't bought a ticket from a booking office for years but the failure to ask which ticket type wouldn't surprise me. As I said, I would find it more surprising the that someone would chance their arm to save a fiver on a 50 euro ticket.

Anyway, Irish Rail have made themselves 140-odd euro out of this incident and probably permanently removed a dozen people as potential future revenue sources. I would also suggest that they possibly could have engaged with the Irish Times slightly more constructively.

I've only ever forgotten my commuter pass once in 10 years and I know most of the ticket collectors on the Sligo route so the guy kindly gave me a social welfare ticket on the day so I could get out after I offered to buy a day return. I would be a little worried that with the way they run things nowadays that I would be facing a 100 euro fine for my troubles.

[berneyarms]

I wouldn't know the likelihood of being asked for a ticket type as I haven't bought a ticket from a booking office for years but the failure to ask which ticket type wouldn't surprise me. As I said, I would find it more surprising the that someone would chance their arm to save a fiver on a 50 euro ticket.

Anyway, Irish Rail have made themselves 140-odd euro out of this incident and probably permanently removed a dozen people as potential future revenue sources. I would also suggest that they possibly could have engaged with the Irish Times slightly more constructively.

I've only ever forgotten my commuter pass once in 10 years and I know most of the ticket collectors on the Sligo route so the guy kindly gave me a social welfare ticket on the day so I could get out after I offered to buy a day return. I would be a little worried that with the way they run things nowadays that I would be facing a 100 euro fine for my troubles.

I can assure you that it is (from my experience) an automatic question.

In the scenario above, I would imagine that you would be liable - you should have bought a ticket.

I can't do what you did if I forget my commuter ticket when travelling on Dublin Bus - I have to grin and bear the fact that I forgot it and pay the driver when I get on the bus (thankfully this has only happened once).

[James Howard]

The issue is that there is no need to treat your best customers like criminals. There is no need to be nasty to a regular commuter who forgets his ticket once every 10 years. In my case, I realised I had forgotten it before I was asked for it so I asked for a ticket first but the ticket checker recognised me and I explained the situation. That is the correct and proper response but I wouldn't be sure of receiving the same treatment now.

By all means, issue a penalty fare to a commuter with a forgotten ticket, but if they identify themselves with a driving licence or passport at the scene of the crime, the decent thing to do is to allow an appeal against the fine rather than antagonising the customer.

I actually don't have a problem with buying a ticket with a forgotten pass, but the issue is with rural stations is that you can easily board a train without realising you've forgotten your pass.

[markpb]

In the scenario above, I would imagine that you would be liable - you should have bought a ticket.

According to the by-laws, he would but many operators allow annual ticket holders to make one or two mistakes per year without penalising them.

[Mark Gleeson]

The issue is that there is no need to treat your best customers like criminals. There is no need to be nasty to a regular commuter who forgets his ticket once every 10 years. In my case, I realised I had forgotten it before I was asked for it so I asked for a ticket first but the ticket checker recognised me and I explained the situation. That is the correct and proper response but I wouldn't be sure of receiving the same treatment now.

By all means, issue a penalty fare to a commuter with a forgotten ticket, but if they identify themselves with a driving licence or passport at the scene of the crime, the decent thing to do is to allow an appeal against the fine rather than antagonising the customer.

I actually don't have a problem with buying a ticket with a forgotten pass, but the issue is with rural stations is that you can easily board a train without realising you've forgotten your pass.

Annual ticket holders will have a fine overturned if within 14 days they present the ticket.

This exception will be withdrawn if someone becomes too forgetful

[James Howard]

It is a question of good-will. Customer good-will has a real and tangible value. If I have to commute by train I will, but if Irish Rail treat me well, I'll mention this to family and friends who are likely to throw a few hundred quid their way. The loss of this good-will has to be balanced against any potential revenue loss from fare evasion.

It is no use having 0% fare evasion if everyone is terrified of travelling by train in case they get arrested and jailed for an accidental rule incursion.

[grainne whale]

I see this story made the Irish Times yesterday.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/pricewatch-readers-queries-1.1733879

Given that the day return is apparently the same cost as a monthly return, I think it's bad form that Irish Rail don't waive this fine. Clearly there was no intent to defraud.

I suspect they will lose more in lost custom from the negative publicity. The person (staff) in the Ticket Office should have asked as what type of return ticket the passenger required ie basic common sense.

[Mark Gleeson]

Equally its the passengers responsibility to confirm the ticket (and change) issued is what they asked for also.

I've caught several errors that way myself.

There is no legal obligation for an appeals process, if there was it would be independent and cases like this would be resolved

[grainne whale]

From a legal point of view - it could be argued that the passenger was sold a ticket that was not fit for purpose, no effort was made as to the type of return ticket the passenger required. Personally I would take this matter up with the National Consumer Agency, they have a website where you can report matters via email.http://www.consumerhelp.ie/report-a-business I hope this is of some use.

[Mark Gleeson]

Irish Rail not covered by consumer law so its not worth the hassle, land based transport is specifically excluded.

The passenger was sold a return ticket, it was possible to use that ticket to complete a return journey within the tickets validity.

Customer did not specify and Irish Rail staff did not seek clarification, customer did not check ticket at time of purchase, passenger did not check ticket before return journey.

Irish Rail have a legitimate case as customer did not have a valid ticket at time of inspection. That is the one fact that cannot be disputed.

It comes down to basic contract of sale issue, did the customer get what they asked for, were they supplied with what they asked for. We can't answer that

[berneyarms]

From a legal point of view - it could be argued that the passenger was sold a ticket that was not fit for purpose, no effort was made as to the type of return ticket the passenger required. Personally I would take this matter up with the National Consumer Agency, they have a website where you can report matters via email.http://www.consumerhelp.ie/report-a-business I hope this is of some use.

It could have been perfectly valid and fit for purpose, given the OP was arriving at 12:00, and there are return trains virtually every hour until 21:00.

What's needed is common sense by both parties - the clerk certainly should have asked when the OP was returning, but at the same time the OP should have checked the ticket, as it is (legally) their responsibility to have the correct ticket for their journey. In much the same way if I'm checking a bag in at the airport, I always check the baggage tag to make sure the correct flight is entered.

Having said all of that, I think making the entire network a penalty fares area is probably taking things too far - people do make genuine mistakes.

I think having it in the commuter areas is perfectly valid, but some middle ground ought to be found for Intercity trips.

[James Howard]

It is difficult to draw a dividing line unless intercity and urban are segregated, but it is not unreasonable to give season-ticket commuters one or two "lives" when it comes to making a genuine mistake and they have ID that proves they are who they say they are. I suspect this mostly happens in practice anyway as it is extremely rare I would be asked for a ticket.

Actually, one thing I've not seen in this case is an explanation of how she got through the barriers at Heuston. I'm not terribly familiar with Heuston but I would expect it is difficult to get through the barriers without a ticket and this in and of itself could be considered evidence of wilful fare evasion.

I am not in the slightest bit in favour of fare evasion. It pushes up the price of tickets for everyone else and it should be prosecuted in most cases. I personally think that the fines are way too small as they are pretty close to the maximum fare on the network. However, being aggressive against a relatively minor loss of revenue and with a fairly reasonable excuse does seem to be counterproductive. Perhaps a ticking-off and collection of the fare difference would be more reasonable if the person can provide ID and can be proven not to have a history of such errors.

A lot of businesses now routinely record customer transactions so as to be able to unambiguously resolve such disputes. If your local Centra can do this, why can't Irish Rail. Ah yes, the union might have a problem.

[grainne whale]

Irish Rail not covered by consumer law so its not worth the hassle, land based transport is specifically excluded.

The passenger was sold a return ticket, it was possible to use that ticket to complete a return journey within the tickets validity.

Customer did not specify and Irish Rail staff did not seek clarification, customer did not check ticket at time of purchase, passenger did not check ticket before return journey.

Irish Rail have a legitimate case as customer did not have a valid ticket at time of inspection. That is the one fact that cannot be disputed.

It comes down to basic contract of sale issue, did the customer get what they asked for, were they supplied with what they asked for. We can't answer that If the customer booked the ticket online they are offered the various return options, the same option should be offered at the ticket office. I have never seen a notice ever at any ticket office stating that 'the customer should check their ticket and change'.
Just being 'devils advocate' how do we know that this is not a scam (ticket office issues the incorrect ticket) - are the ticket checkers paid on commission or do the get a bonus depending on the number of fines they issue.
I'm going to check as to whether Irish Rail complies with Consumer Law in Ireland , this is very unfair to the passenger (consumer), as they have no protection in law. Irish Rail are providing a service and should comply.
As regards being treated badly by Irish Rail staff - write (registered post) to HR in Irish Rail and complain about the attitude (name is on fine notice), it will go on his file.

[Jamie2k9]

If the customer booked the ticket online they are offered the various return options, the same option should be offered at the ticket office. I have never seen a notice ever at any ticket office stating that 'the customer should check their ticket and change'.
Just being 'devils advocate' how do we know that this is not a scam (ticket office issues the incorrect ticket) - are the ticket checkers paid on commission or do the get a bonus depending on the number of fines they issue.
I'm going to check as to whether Irish Rail complies with Consumer Law in Ireland , this is very unfair to the passenger (consumer), as they have no protection in law. Irish Rail are providing a service and should comply.
As regards being treated badly by Irish Rail staff - write to HR in Irish Rail and complain about the attitude (name is on fine notice), it will go on his file.

Seriously?

If a customer buys cloths online they are given a choice, should a person at the check out in a shop confirm with the customer they picked the right size?

The person is in the wrong, no if and's or but's, however IE are being a little harsh.

[grainne whale]

Seriously?

If a customer buys cloths online they are given a choice, should a person at the check out in a shop confirm with the customer they picked the right size?

The person is in the wrong, no if and's or but's, however IE are being a little harsh.
We are talking about a service here, not clothes shopping, there is no similarity. If various return options are offered online they should be offered in the Ticket Office as well. What would happen if the passenger in this case had sight problems, would they be fined as well, because they had neglected to check their ticket was valid.

[markpb]

the OP should have checked the ticket, as it is (legally) their responsibility to have the correct ticket for their journey.

The OP has said that they don't travel by train very often. Given that, how are they meant to know that different type of return tickets exist? Irish Rail were selling the ticket, they should have made that information available.

This is a very simple mistake by an IR employee turned into yet another PR mess because of their corporate intransigence and hapless idea about how customer relations work.

[grainne whale]

The OP has said that they don't travel by train very often. Given that, how are they meant to know that different type of return tickets exist? Irish Rail were selling the ticket, they should have made that information available.

This is a very simple mistake by an IR employee turned into yet another PR mess because of their corporate intransigence and hapless idea about how customer relations work. Well said, you have 'hit the nail on the head'. It's a pity that they run their business this way, the customer frequently ends up disgruntled. :mad:
Have a look at this, personally I would have thought that this passenger's case would be of less merit:

http://www.rte.ie/tv/theconsumershow/irishrail.html

[James Howard]

To be honest, intransigence is a bit of a national trail but especially so in public service. Changing one's mind is taken as a sign of weakness. There is no need to make a big PR mess out of a 5 euro error. If this person was seriously trying to fare dodge she would not have bought a ticket at all or would have just bought a ticket to the next station.

There were several ways in which Irish Rail failed this customer and they have lost her (and probably several members of her family) for ever as a willing customer. A successful competitive business learns from their failures, makes it right and implements changes to stop it happening again. Irish Rail is not a successful competitive business.

[Jamie2k9]

We are talking about a service here, not clothes shopping, there is no similarity. If various return options are offered online they should be offered in the Ticket Office as well. What would happen if the passenger in this case had sight problems, would they be fined as well, because they had neglected to check their ticket was valid.

Of course it's different but the principal is similar. If the passenger has sight problems they would of had a pass. It still doesn't take away from the fact that person didn't check her tickets.

The OP has said that they don't travel by train very often. Given that, how are they meant to know that different type of return tickets exist? Irish Rail were selling the ticket, they should have made that information available.

This is a very simple mistake by an IR employee turned into yet another PR mess because of their corporate intransigence and hapless idea about how customer relations work.

All she had to do was look at the dates on the ticket, nor rocket science. Lots of people do things not that often but made it our business to check.

[grainne whale]

Of course it's different but the principal is similar. If the passenger has sight problems they would of had a pass. It still doesn't take away from the fact that person didn't check her tickets.



All she had to do was look at the dates on the ticket, nor rocket science. Lots of people do things not that often but made it our business to check. A lot of people don't check things, for example, people not checking the spelling on posting that they make. :eek:

[berneyarms]

The OP has said that they don't travel by train very often. Given that, how are they meant to know that different type of return tickets exist? Irish Rail were selling the ticket, they should have made that information available.

This is a very simple mistake by an IR employee turned into yet another PR mess because of their corporate intransigence and hapless idea about how customer relations work.

As I said above - some common sense on both sides is needed.

The clerk should have asked when the OP was returning, something I've always found to be an automatic question, but apparently (and I have to say bizarrely) was not asked on this occasion.

The OP should have checked the ticket - the dates of travel are printed on it. It's not particularly unreasonable to expect someone to check something they just purchased.

Either way, I don't think that Intercity services should necessarily be a full penalty fares area. It's becoming too rigid. Such a system is fine for commuter services, but extending it across the country and applying zero tolerance is really taking things too far.

Personally, I still think that every Intercity service (by that I mean trains between Dublin and Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Tralee, Sligo, Belfast and Rosslare, and the regional routes) should still all have a checker on them, and he/she should then make sure everyone has the right ticket. I've no problem with commuter services being subject to the penalty fare principle, but by and large you will encounter people who are unfamiliar with rules when travelling longer distances.

[grainne whale]

We don't know the actual circumstances, perhaps the train was due shortly, the passenger asked for the return ticket, the clerk issued a return ticket. Possibly the clerk had to go an attend to the train as well, I can understand a passenger just grabbing the ticket and going to catch the train, just human error, not an attempted fare evasion.
This situation has done no favours for Irish Rail, it has put them (customer services) in a very bad light as another poster has stated.

[animaal]

Irish Rail have blindly followed the letter of the law, with the total absence of common sense.

On the other side of the coin, if I ask at the counter for "a one-way ticket for a train at 10:30", and the train leaves fifteen minutes late, did I get what I asked for? Could I demand a refund? I'm sure the company would deny any refund, and common sense would support them. But if all that matters is the transaction at the counter, and the customer getting what they asked for, there would be a case. The person at the counter hasn't indicated that the train wouldn't actually leave at 10:30, in the same way that the OP didn't indicate that the return journey would be required on the same day.

[Mark Gleeson]

You are entitled to a full refund no questions asked at point of purchase if you do not travel.

Irish Rail is under contractual obligation to enforce zero tolerance on fare evasion by the NTA.

[berneyarms]

You are entitled to a full refund no questions asked at point of purchase if you do not travel.

Irish Rail is under contractual obligation to enforce zero tolerance on fare evasion by the NTA.

That's all well and good in theory, but frankly there are better ways of doing this.

[Mark Gleeson]

NTA are paying for the service, continuation of Irish Rail's funding depends on demonstration and application of a firm fare evasion policy

In this case no valid ticket was held, the background is not important

The passenger has reasonable grounds to complain that at purchase Irish Rail failed to sell the ticket to meet the customers expressed needs

[berneyarms]

NTA are paying for the service, continuation of Irish Rail's funding depends on demonstration and application of a firm fare evasion policy

In this case no valid ticket was held, the background is not important

The passenger has reasonable grounds to complain that at purchase Irish Rail failed to sell the ticket to meet the customers expressed needs

I don't dispute that a firm policy is needed, but so is some common sense.

As I said above - I think applying zero tolerance and penalty fares on Intercity services is the wrong approach - far better to have on board checkers who do ensure everyone has a valid ticket, and act as a point of information for customers, something sadly lacking on many Interciy trains in Ireland.

[berneyarms]

You are entitled to a full refund no questions asked at point of purchase if you do not travel.

Irish Rail is under contractual obligation to enforce zero tolerance on fare evasion by the NTA.

Can you point me to the clause in the PSO contract that states this please?

[ocian]

I have to agree with some of the guys here, zero tolerance is ok for DART and Commuter services, but for Intercity a different approach is needed. Take the Rosslare train for instance, genuine cases like this do not get fines as the ticket checker can exchange the ticket for the correct one the customer was looking for, while fare evaders get caught and forced to buy the correct ticket they tried to avoid buying or face the fine. Same policy in most of Europe. Simple but works brilliantly, I've never seen or heard of any problems on the Rosslare line.

Ticket checker:

Fare evaders = none, all passengers have tickets
customers with correct ticket/incorrect ticket exchanged for a new one = all
loss of revenue to the company as a result of this policy = none
customers receiving a good customer service with a staff member who fixes problems rather then penalising people for them = all
bad pr for the company as a result of genuine cases like this = none
number of people (and their family & friends) who will never travel by train again = none

Overall: satisfied customers with correct ticket type and all revenue accounted for.

RPU zero tolerance policy:

Fare evaders = some, not caught as not all trains inspected
customers with correct ticket/incorrect ticket exchanged for a new one = most people have correct ticket, but no tickets exchanged in genuine cases like this (fine issued instead in a "you have no ticket you pay a fine" attitude)
loss of revenue to the company as a result of this policy = some
customers receiving a good customer service with a staff member who fixes problems rather then penalising people for them = none, all passengers penalised rather then helped to resolve problems, and some RPU won't even answer customers questions
bad pr for the company as a result of genuine cases like this = many cases
number of people (and their family & friends) who will never travel by train again = many cases

Overall: many intimidated and pissed off customers, and some loss of revenue to the company. Some revenue coming from fines to genuine cases rather then fare evaders.

Need I say any more?


P.S. I'm using the words "fare evader" for someone who intends to defraud the company, and "genuine cases" for cases such as this where a mistake was made on the company's behalf or the customer's behalf.

[haddockman]

I was in Norway last weekend and took many trains both intercity and local. All trains have a conductor/ticket inspector so fare evasion is zero. Also the inspector can sell you a ticket on board regardless of where you are going.

This is in addition to ticket machines on the platforms/stations and booking offices in major stations. Also online tickets can be collected from the inspector on board.

Works very well for the Norwegians. Just means having a member of staff on each train.

[James Howard]

The other advantage of having staff on board is that it helps enormously on cutting down on anti-social behaviour which can ruin a journey and make people seek other modes of transport due to feeling unsafe. It can prevent low-level stuff like drinking and playing music escalating to violence as people get more drunk.

While there is a cost, this should be largely covered by a reduction in fare evasion and in the longer term by more passengers due to improved service. Once you are inside the area covered by station barriers, there is no excuse for not having a ticket.

However, all of the rights and wrongs are irrelevant. If the NTA contract states zero tolerance, then Irish Rail have no choice but to fine anybody not in possession of a valid ticket.

[markpb]

However, all of the rights and wrongs are irrelevant. If the NTA contract states zero tolerance, then Irish Rail have no choice but to fine anybody not in possession of a valid ticket.

I'd be really surprised if that was true. It's more likely to say that IR should put in place procedures to minimum fare evasion. I don't think anyone in the NTA is stupid enough to believe fare evasion will ever disappear completely. Here is the contract (http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/contract_irishrail.pdf) if anyone is bored on a Friday morning. I skimmed over it and can't find any reference to fare evasion but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

In any case, even if the NTA have come over all draconian on IR, it's still up to IR to inform the customer that multiple return tickets exist so they have the information required to pick the right one. It's not fare evasion unless its deliberate.

[berneyarms]

I'd be really surprised if that was true. It's more likely to say that IR should put in place procedures to minimum fare evasion. I don't think anyone in the NTA is stupid enough to believe fare evasion will ever disappear completely. Here is the contract (http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/contract_irishrail.pdf) if anyone is bored on a Friday morning. I skimmed over it and can't find any reference to fare evasion but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

In any case, even if the NTA have come over all draconian on IR, it's still up to IR to inform the customer that multiple return tickets exist so they have the information required to pick the right one. It's not fare evasion unless its deliberate.

Exactly - I looked at the PSO contract too and can't see anything along those lines.

That's why I'm asking Mark Gleeson to tell us where in the contract that this is stated.

[grainne whale]

I love this bit from the contract :
Staff:
'Irish Rail staff will be well presented, friendly, helpful and courteous at all times'.

Quite clearly this is not the case - especially the courteous bit :cool:

[Mark Gleeson]

Exactly - I looked at the PSO contract too and can't see anything along those lines.

That's why I'm asking Mark Gleeson to tell us where in the contract that this is stated.

Its in the contract appendix

"Revenue Protection
Report on measures taken to ensure revenue
protection.

Quarterly Report

Percentage of Compliance
"

Exact details are not provided for commercial reasons

[berneyarms]

Its in the contract appendix

"Revenue Protection
Report on measures taken to ensure revenue
protection.

Quarterly Report

Percentage of Compliance
"

Exact details are not provided for commercial reasons

That does not prescribe how it is to be done, though.

There is absolutely nothing stopping Irish Rail from having a ticket checker on Intercity trains ensuring everyone has a correct ticket, rather than making the entire network a penalty fares area.

[Mark Gleeson]

That does not prescribe how it is to be done, though.

There is absolutely nothing stopping Irish Rail from having a ticket checker on Intercity trains ensuring everyone has a correct ticket, rather than making the entire network a penalty fares area.

NTA set the rules and Irish Rail's funding is dependent on this. Irish Rail has indicated to the NTA that it will operate a national penalty fare policy to meet its obligation in contract.

Irish Rail is obliged to report quarterly on revenue protection matters.

The issue is not the policy its how edge cases are handled. We can argue all day but in this specific case the passenger did not hold a valid ticket, that fact is not denied by anyone.

The issue was the act of purchase which falls outside the penalty fares procedure per Rail Safety Act 2005

[berneyarms]

NTA set the rules and Irish Rail's funding is dependent on this. Irish Rail has indicated to the NTA that it will operate a national penalty fare policy to meet its obligation in contract.

Irish Rail is obliged to report quarterly on revenue protection matters.

The issue is not the policy its how edge cases are handled. We can argue all day but in this specific case the passenger did not hold a valid ticket, that fact is not denied by anyone.

The issue was the act of purchase which falls outside the penalty fares procedure per Rail Safety Act 2005

I understand all of that - and with regard to the specific incident, I've already said that the OP has unfortunately broken the rules, and there isn't an awful lot that can be done.

However, as a general comment, I think that implementing a national penalty fare area is the wrong way to protect revenue - I think it will cause more problems and issues than it solves, and lead to more of incidents such as this where there is an element of doubt.

Far better from both a revenue policy and from a customer service perspective to have a checker on board each Intercity train, as you end up with everyone having a valid ticket, and you have someone on board that passengers can speak to directly.

Are RUI saying that they prefer a national penalty fare policy to having a checker on each Intercity train?

[Mark Gleeson]

Firstly everyone should have a ticket, if they do then there is no issue. Issue only arises if you have no ticket.

The question is do you want to issue a normal priced ticket to someone found without a ticket or do you penalise people who have no ticket where they should have had a ticket

First option is pointless as there is no risk in not buying a ticket.

Irish Rail's policy is consistent any service, anywhere nationwide which is great compared to the UK where its a nightmare to know what the rules are.

[Thomas Ralph]

Ah it's pretty much the same either way to be honest. Got no ticket? Meet a ticket checker and you get sold a ticket. Meet a revenue inspector and you get a penalty fare (much lower than Ireland as currently £20 or double the fare from where you started to the next station, although it's going up to £50 or four times the fare shortly with a 50% discount for prompt payment), or reported for prosecution. Penalty fares are only charged on some trains but prosecution is possible in any case.

[Colm Moore]

If the passenger has sight problems they would of had a pass. Not every person with sight problems will have a pass, e.g. they might not be entitled to a pass on various grounds or be severely long-sighted and unable to read without glasses.

[Jamie2k9]

Not every person with sight problems will have a pass, e.g. they might not be entitled to a pass on various grounds or be severely long-sighted and unable to read without glasses.

ok fair point however your clutching at straws!

You should always double check what you get.