Split Ticketing Notice of Intention to Prosecute.

[Flamingo]

It is definitely been my reading of it in the past, and I have treated passengers in the position of wanting to split their journey after departure when they had passed an opportunity to buy as travelling without a ticket before now - without any comeback.

 

[Fare-Cop]

It is definitely been my reading of it in the past, and I have treated passengers in the position of wanting to split their journey after departure when they had passed an opportunity to buy as travelling without a ticket before now - without any comeback.

Dave's detailed explanation is completely accurate of course. We deal with this at least on a weekly basis and frequently more often than that.

The usual arguments put forward at a barrier or on-train check during the final portion of the journey are 'I wanted to split to save money', or far more frequently 'I got a call on my mobile and because (insert reason here) I had to stay on the train'

If there is evidence on the ticket held that the traveller who 'wanted to split' had purchased the first portion of the journey at a ticket office, or online, TOD etc. then an opportunity to buy both tickets has not been taken up by that passenger and a report may be filed.

A charge of RoRA [1889] S.5.3.b may be considered in these circumstances and in my experience, where the traveller has decided to challenge this and a summons has been issued, following legal advice some travellers have chosen to seek out-of-Court disposal and in all other cases that I have knowledge of, the Magistrates have been persuaded by the evidence and have convicted. None have been appealed.

If the traveller has started their journey at a station without facilities, or where only a limited ticket availability from TVM exists, provided a ticket has been purchased I always instruct inspectors to exercise discretion, which will then be informed by the travellers words & actions.

A traveller's wish to purchase a different type of ticket, but not holding ANY ticket when facilities were available to them before being checked, does not negate the liability to hold a ticket under National Railways Byelaws (2005)

When, as does occasionally happen, a traveller may have bought a ticket from A to B and gets a call on route, which requires that traveller to continue to C, if the traveller knows that there is a conductor/guard/inspector on the train and if s/he contacts that person before reaching B, declares the need to travel further the cheapest fare available ought to be charged for the remainder of their journey.

In other circumstances, as Dave has made perfectly clear, the traveller should alight at the point to which s/he has paid and re-book.

 

[Flamingo]

I had somebody recently who handed me an Anytime ticket from Paddington to Reading on an evening train about thirty minutes after we passed Reading (and after I had walked past him at leadt three times) saying "I bought this from a TVM as a permit to travel. I want to buy an off-peak from Reading to X and a Super-off-Peak from X to Y". Y, by coincidence, is unbarriered.

When asked why they had not bought them all at Paddington they said the queues were too long (the ticket was timed 20 minutes before departure) and they are not oblidged to queue an unreasonable time, and when asked why they hadn't found me on board or stopped me when I walked past them, they said they were under no obligation to stop me, I had to aproach them.

Basically, they sounded like they had been reading this forum, but only taking out the bits they liked.

It didn't end well for them, I informed them of their requirement to purchase an extension before the first ticket ran out, that they were now in breach or the RoRA, and that at the time they are travelling, off-peak tickets are not valid from Reading. I then charged them an Anytime Single (as they did not have a ticket) from Reading to Y, £60, not the approx £18 they wanted to pay, plus they are now on my radar...

At the risk of repeating myself from earlier in the thread, here was a classic. The individual involved was full of bluster and quoting very selectively from the NRCoC but eventually paid - by quoting other sections of the NRCoC back at them I pulled their (obviously rehearsed) arguments apart.

Now if they had either bought the combination before boarding or found me before I found them, it would have had a better outcome for them...

 

[455driver]

Surely one 'split' ticket without the other is a short ticket?

Edit-

Dave has already covered it in his normal precise manner!

 

[Fare-Cop]

Surely one 'split' ticket without the other is a short ticket?

Edit-

Dave has already covered it in his normal precise manner!

Exactly, hence potential of RoRA S.5.3.b allegation to summons

 

[londonbridge]

When I did agency work at Gatwick I used a Gatwick-zones 5-6 travelcard. On one occasion I needed to go to the agency office in Crawley. I boarded the Gatwick train, found the guard and purchased a Gatwick-Crawley return. Going by earlier arguments, I assume that, had I not found the guard, I would not have been able to continue to Crawley and purchase an excess?

 

[Deerfold]

When I did agency work at Gatwick I used a Gatwick-zones 5-6 travelcard. On one occasion I needed to go to the agency office in Crawley. I boarded the Gatwick train, found the guard and purchased a Gatwick-Crawley return. Going by earlier arguments, I assume that, had I not found the guard, I would not have been able to continue to Crawley and purchase an excess?

That's right.

 

[Busaholic]

Although the fundamentals regarding train travel, contracts, etc may have changed little since 1980, what the author of that standard work could not have foreseen was privatisation and the consequent privations visited upon the 'customer' (formerly 'passenger') in the attempt to screw as much money from this source as well as from the government by TOCs. The author would have been judging matters as a sane and rational person would, but such times are gone and may never return. Until a situation exists where it is not possible to spend more between A and C directly via B than separate tickets between A and B then B and C, assuming the same ticket type, then these endless debates about the length of a piece of string will rage. Come back Jonathan Swift, all is forgiven.

 

[najaB]

Although the fundamentals regarding train travel, contracts, etc may have changed little since 1980...

Travelling by train from point A to C requires a ticket (or tickets) that cover the journey from A to C - that was as true in 1980 as it is today (and was true in 1890 as well!)

 

[Rich McLean]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, and Dave has backed myself and many others on it, if you want to split book it online and collect before travel. If your turn up on the day and no ticket office, you have to buy a through ticket or jump off at split point, buy a new set of tickets for the remainder and join the next service (unless you approach the guard and they agree to sell further tickets before the intended split location). It's a privilege and not a right to split.

 

[Deerfold]

Until a situation exists where it is not possible to spend more between A and C directly via B than separate tickets between A and B then B and C, assuming the same ticket type, then these endless debates about the length of a piece of string will rage. Come back Jonathan Swift, all is forgiven.

I think that's impossible unless all tickets are priced strictly by mileage with the same restrictions and different prices if you're travelling by a different route.

It's not going to happen.

 

[Tibbs]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, and Dave has backed myself and many others on it, if you want to split book it online and collect before travel. If your turn up on the day and no ticket office, you have to buy a through ticket or jump off at split point, buy a new set of tickets for the remainder and join the next service (unless you approach the guard and they agree to sell further tickets before the intended split location). It's a privilege and not a right to split.

I'm pretty sure buying split tickets is a right, which is backed by the NRCoC.

When you get to exercise that right, is another conversation.

 

[najaB]

I'm pretty sure buying split tickets is a right, which is backed by the NRCoC.

Splitting hairs, I know, but condition 19 says (in part): "You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey..." it specifically says you have a right to use a combination of tickets, it doesn't say anything about giving you the right to buy a combination of tickets.

This is a small but, to me at least, significant difference - the Railway is under no obligation to sell you a split unless you specifically ask for it (nor to make specific provisions to allow you to so do), but they have to accept your valid combination of tickets if you have one.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Perhaps I can help with a couple of the questions that are being raised here:

First. The Case Law is ancient.
This shouldn't surprise us. Most of the uncertainties in legislation will be challenged within the first few years or decades of its enactment. Once these have been clarified in Judgements there will be little point in anyone mounting a subsequent challenge (in the form of an Appeal) on the same point. As Fare-Cop noted, there is no appetite for Appealling prosecutions on these technicalities today, because these uncertainties in the word of the Act have been codified ; no Prosecutor would bring forward a Prosecution and no Appellant would bring forward an Appeal, where the canon of Case Law clearly led to an outcome against them.

Second. Apparent Conflict between Conditions of Travel and Legislation.
In practice, we would expect Railway Companies and their passengers to honour the Conditions, and that will be all there is to be said. But in the case of passengers suspected of fare evasion, then the Offences created by legislation will assist in identifying the crucial circumstances and in giving authority and force to a Prosecution. A Condition of a Contract cannot legitimise or authorise a Crime. A conflict between them cannot arise and should not be permitted to arise.

Splitting hairs, I know, but condition 19 says (in part): "You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey..." it specifically says you have a right to use a of a combination of tickets, it doesn't say anything about giving you the right to buy a combination of tickets.

This is a small but, to me at least, significant difference - the Railway is under no obligation to sell you a split unless you specifically ask for it (nor to make specific provisions to allow you to so do), but they have to accept your valid combination of tickets if you have one.

Indeed, and I consider that this distinction in ticket splitting is greater than mere hair splitting.
As I've already remarked, the Condition allowing travel with a combination of tickets is not an offer of retailing options or customer buying options, but is a specific authorisation to travel in a very specific circumstance. That is: the passenger holds one of certain specific combinations of tickets. It simply clarifies that if a person holds 'a combination of tickets' (with some detailled constraints) then the default obligation to travel only between the named stations will be relaxed. It provides no more than a concession to those who hold more than one ticket for conjoined legs of a journey.
If a passenger doesn't hold more than one ticket (the 'combination of tickets'), then Condition 19 is silent.
A 'wish' or 'intention' to hold a second ticket does not extinguish the plural sense of the word "combination". Clarity on this point dissolves the apparent conflict between the Conditions of Travel and the Legislation.

Any other reading would lead us towards an attempt to create a Condition of a Contract which is captured by a Criminal Offence - a situation which is called 'abhorrent to the law'.

 

[Tibbs]

Splitting hairs, I know, but condition 19 says (in part): "You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey..." it specifically says you have a right to use a combination of tickets, it doesn't say anything about giving you the right to buy a combination of tickets.

This is a small but, to me at least, significant difference - the Railway is under no obligation to sell you a split unless you specifically ask for it (nor to make specific provisions to allow you to so do), but they have to accept your valid combination of tickets if you have one.

I was querying the assertion that it was a privilege and not a right to split.

NRCoC says you are allowed to use multiple combinations of tickets to make a journey, which makes splitting a right not a privilege given by 'the Railway' and therefore within their power to take away.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I was querying the assertion that it was a privilege and not a right to split.

NRCoC says you are allowed to use multiple combinations of tickets to make a journey, which makes splitting a right not a privilege given by 'the Railway' and therefore within their power to take away.

To be fair, you said:

I'm pretty sure buying split tickets is a right, which is backed by the NRCoC....

The NRCoC does not confer that right.

 

[neilmc]

I'm confused.

So are we saying that if you turn up at a station holding spilt tickets for a journey you have a right to make that journey, subject to the condition of the train stopping at the split station(s).

But you DON'T have a right to demand that any rail employee sells you such tickets, whether you are already on the train or at a booking office, if you don't already possess the full set of such tickets to cover the full journey you intend to make?

 

[DaleCooper]

I'm confused.

So are we saying that if you turn up at a station holding spilt tickets for a journey you have a right to make that journey, subject to the condition of the train stopping at the split station(s).

But you DON'T have a right to demand that any rail employee sells you such tickets, whether you are already on the train or at a booking office, if you don't already possess the full set of such tickets to cover the full journey you intend to make?

If you're already on the train you have entered into a contract entitling you to go from A to B, if you want to go to C you need to alight at B and buy another ticket

 

[DaveNewcastle]

But you DON'T have a right to demand that any rail employee sells you such tickets, whether you are already on the train or at a booking office, if you don't already possess the full set of such tickets to cover the full journey you intend to make?

That question appears to contradict itself. Of course you can ask for tickets which you don't already hold.

If you're already on the train you have entered into a contract entitling you to go from A to B, if you want to go to C you need to alight at B and buy another ticket

It would be perfectly acceptable to buy a ticket for the onward journey from an on-board guard (so no need to alight at B).

 

[DaleCooper]

It would be perfectly acceptable to buy a ticket for the onward journey from an on-board guard (so no need to alight at B).

Yes, I was trying to keep it simple - and failed

 

[najaB]

I was querying the assertion that it was a privilege and not a right to split.

I believe that in my post I said that it is a right to use a combination of tickets, so I can't see where the confusion lies?

 

[Clip]

DaveNewcastle thankyou for showing us all that in case law what some of us have been saying is in fact correct in that the passenger shouldve bought the second sleg of their journeys ticket either at Blackfriars or St Albans where they had to change or their ticket ran out.

Without wanting to get into trouble here I do find it incredible that after 3 days of you providing this information that none of those who had their 'thoughts' and 'ideas' of how they 'interpreted' what is written have not come back to say anything in either this thread or the other in the fares sub thread.

But this now stands that you have proven, what we all knew, in that where possible the passenger should make sure they have in their possession a ticket that covers them for all of their journey and should they want to split then the onus is on them to ensure they are in full possession of all tickets

Many thanks

 

[cookie365]

Imagine you had a season ticket from A to B and boarded a train to C that passed through B but didn't stop there or indeed at any other station other than A and C. You know that before you board.

You approach the guard before the train gets to B and ask for a single from B to C.

Had you already broken the law as soon as the train pulled out of the station at A?

 

[Deerfold]

Imagine you had a season ticket from A to B and boarded a train to C that passed through B but didn't stop there or indeed at any other station other than A and C. You know that before you board.

You approach the guard before the train gets to B and ask for a single from B to C.

Had you already broken the law as soon as the train pulled out of the station at A?

I suspect in this case you'd only be OK if you'd asked the guard before boarding if you'd be able to buy the ticket.

Technically you're OK until B - but that's the only way to guarantee you'll be sorted by B.

 

[najaB]

Had you already broken the law as soon as the train pulled out of the station at A?

Good question, my take on it is no as you have a valid ticket for the portion of the journey from A to B.

You would need to be sure that it is possible to buy the ticket on board though!

 

[DaleCooper]

Good question, my take on it is no as you have a valid ticket for the portion of the journey from A to B.

You would need to be sure that it is possible to buy the ticket on board though!

Is it a valid ticket if the train doesn't stop at B?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Imagine you had a season ticket from A to B and boarded a train to C that passed through B but didn't stop there or indeed at any other station other than A and C. You know that before you board.

You approach the guard before the train gets to B and ask for a single from B to C.

Had you already broken the law as soon as the train pulled out of the station at A?

My opinion is that there is not enough information to give an accurate answer.

 

[221129]

Is it a valid ticket if the train doesn't stop at B?

Only if it is a season ticket

 

[najaB]

Is it a valid ticket if the train doesn't stop at B?

Mmm... I see what you're getting at. Got to mull this one over some more. :?

 

[DaleCooper]

Even worse, could it be interpreted as intention to defraud?