Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport - United ...

Ev 144 Transport Committee: Evidence
7. What appeal mechanisms exist for passengers <strong>and</strong> are they adequate?
7.1 For railways, it is a requirement of any penalty fares scheme that an independent appealsprocess is
instituted. All railway penalty fares schemes currently use the Independent Penalty Fares Appeal Service
(IPFAS) which operates under a DfT approved code of practice to assess issues such as whether appropriate
discretion was used, was there appropriate warning of the scheme posted at stations <strong>and</strong> whether the scheme
was applied consistently Most operators set a 21-day limit for appeals to be made.
7.2 We consider this to be adequate. As noted, the code of practice has strict criteria for considering cases
<strong>and</strong> it is not unusual for appeals to be successful if these have not been met.
7.3 For buses the appeal process is not regulated or set down in statute but in FirstGroup would typically
involve a senior manager in the company conducting an investigation where all the evidence is considered
including the interviewing of witnesses. This is rare but when it happens most disputes are usually settled
amicably.
7.4 If an individual is not satisfied with a company response then a further appeal is possible to the Bus
Appeals Body (BAB). This is a non-statutory body set up by the Confederation of Passenger Transport <strong>and</strong>
Bus Users UK to deal with appeals arising from UK Bus <strong>and</strong> Coach operations which are not covered by
any other statutory body. We consider this to be suYcient because although the findings of the BAB are not
binding failure to abide with them can be taken into account when the relevant TraYc Commissioner is
deciding whether an operator is of “good repute” for registration <strong>and</strong> licensing purposes.
8. Are the rights of passengers <strong>and</strong> the powers of ticket inspectors well-balanced?
8.1 In the case of rail where revenue protection inspectors have a considerable array of powers but
passengers are protected by a strong code of practice backed-up by statute, the answer to this is probably
yes. For the bus industry the diYculty in levying on the spot fines is an issue <strong>and</strong>, as noted, the courts process
is a diYcult route. Attracting the interest of the police to bring a prosecution is the first hurdle but the whole
process can be extremely cumbersome <strong>and</strong> expensive for what often amount to low value amounts.
9. Do operators of public transport take adequate measures to protect fares revenue?
9.1 Given that virtually all UK FirstGroup bus <strong>and</strong> rail operators take revenue risk, we have every
incentive to maximise revenue collected <strong>and</strong> minimise fare evasion. Levels of evasion are typically less than
3% <strong>and</strong> much oV this quantum will be due to finding a level beyond which the costs of collecting an extra
percent of revenue is uneconomic.
9.2 Revenue collection measures are generally welcomed by customers, providing adequate facilities are
provided for purchasing tickets. Honest customers do become annoyed when they see others travelling
without paying especially because advances in technology in terms of self service <strong>and</strong> staV operated ticket
machines as well as the internet have greatly improved the ease of buying the correct ticket for the journey.
9.3 As an illustration of our commitment to revenue protection, on taking over the WAGN <strong>and</strong>
Thameslink franchises in April 2006 we are investing over £5 million in revenue protection measures
including installing additional Automatic Ticket Gates <strong>and</strong> the employment of additional revenue
protection inspectors.
9.4 In our UK Bus Division we still employ around 100 inspectors on ticket checking duties despite the
fact that virtually all our fleet is One Person Operated <strong>and</strong> customers have to pass the driver through a single
door on entrance or exit. These mainly look for fraudulent use of period passes or evidence of counterfeiting.
<strong>Concessionary</strong> Fares—The Right Strategy?
10. Is the Government’s concessionary fares strategy, including the proposed scheme for concessionary bus
travel, adequate?
10.1 From a customer perspective, the introduction of a truly national bus concession for the over 60s is
a major step forward although the discretion to continue local enhancements has the potential to cause
ongoing confusion.
10.2 The next step would be to m<strong>and</strong>ate other modes particularly to encourage journeys that are more
logically made by a combination of bus-rail or bus-tram rather than all bus. In addition, the diVering nature
of discretionary rail schemes across the country often causes confusion for concessionary card holders, who
are sometimes unclear about how far their card takes them <strong>and</strong> what level of discount it oVers.
10.3 From an operator perspective, the principle of “no better, no worse oV” cannot be disputed, but its
application has been problematic with scope for disagreement between operators <strong>and</strong> local authorities. It
might be appropriate to see the administration of concessionary fares h<strong>and</strong>led at a national or regional level
rather than by the plethora of local district councils that currently fund the schemes. The current mechanism
causes much duplication of eVort <strong>and</strong> hinders the introduction of st<strong>and</strong>ard or consistent parameters for