FGW at Paddington still getting evening Off Peak validity spectacularly wrong.

[yorkie]

It's not a "loophole" if he someone is using the ticket between the origin & destination printed on the ticket, which he is.

If purchasing a ticket with a carefully chosen origin and/or destination other than the one you are using, to get a better price, that could be seen as using a loophole. There is no harm in doing this, it's still perfectly valid. It could be argued that loopholes generally occur because some Train Companies overcharge for certain journeys!

Whether it's a loophole or not is largely irrelevant, and certainly not worth falling out with people over, but in this case it isn't.

 

[Jonfun]

Ultimately, loophole or not a loophole, if the ticket is valid for travel it's valid for travel. If the company don't want it to be, they are perfectly at liberty to get the restriction changed. But seeing as they haven't, one would assume they have no issue and the ticket should be valid - and the gateline staff should be given appropriate advice (like a poster of ticket restriction codes, or a book of flashcards) to ensure the correct information is given out. I don't get why this is so difficult.

 

[Bletchleyite]

BNM found a perfectly valid (dare we say it) loophole and the railway does not like it. It is also clear that GWR cant do anything about it as its not one of their flows.

It isn't a loophole, as so far as I understand it (hopefully I understand it right) he is actually making the journey as ticketed. It is a valid ticket.

Calling it a loophole gives credence to the attitude being experienced, which is unacceptable whether it is a loophole or not, but all the more unacceptable given that it is not a loophole.

In any case (and I'm not saying the OP is), if the OP is making the ticketed journey on a valid ticket the "attitude test" does not apply. Provided the OP is not being abusive, and I see no evidence that he is, you don't have to be happy or cheerful or particularly polite to make a journey on a valid ticket. Clearly, it's better to be happy and polite, but it is not a requirement of travel on the railway. You can put your ticket in the barrier and say as little as you wish. Staff have no remit to stop anyone from travelling just for being blunt or to the point, provided they are not actually abusive. (Noting that an assertive but polite complaint is *not* abuse - abuse is when it gets personal, when swearing/shouting starts or there is an assault).

The "attitude test"'s valid use is in determining how much discretion is applied in a situation where the passenger's ticket is not valid.

 

[bb21]

Can we keep the discussion about whether it is a loophole separate please? I don't think it is constructive in anyway in this thread. Please do so in a separate thread, if anyone desperately wishes to discuss the definition of "loophole".

Whether this ticket is a loophole really means very little in the context of things, as several people have already pointed out.

 

[Starmill]

It's the fault of GWR pricing. If you check Didcot to Tonbridge leaving after 10.00 am and returning after 4 pm the Off Peak fares are £ 37.00 Standard and £ 55.50 First Class. (17:42 or 18:00 from Paddington)

No it isn't. The ticket to Tonbridge is priced by Southeastern.

BNM obviously wants to go to Tonbridge anyway because if he didn't need beyond Paddington there's a cheaper ticket.

 

[PermitToTravel]

More than one. GWR's pricing really is shoddy

 

[bnm]

Off to Kent again later today. Back through Checkpoint Charlie Paddington around 5pm.

Wish me luck!

 

[MarlowDonkey]

No it isn't. The ticket to Tonbridge is priced by Southeastern.

The point is that if the return ticket from A to B, then B to C, then C to D is cheaper and gives better conditions than the return ticket from A to B, then you are asking for arbitrage, particularly if the three journeys needed to reach D from A require a change of train and operator.

 

[didcotdean]

The 'anomaly' is that GWR prices its off-peak first class DID-PAD ticket at a premium of 175% over its equivalent standard one, whereas Southeastern prices DID-TON at a premium of only 55%. This is similar to the off peak first class premium it places on journeys from Kent to London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there an argument that says that all tickets of whatever kind across London should simply be the sum of the two bits?

 

[cuccir]

I'm sure any such 'blanket' approach would only create other splitting and validity anomalies elsewhere!

 

[miami]

Off to Kent again later today. Back through Checkpoint Charlie Paddington around 5pm.

Wish me luck!

As I understand it, if your papers were in order, you could pass through Checkpoint Charlie. Doesn't sound like the case in Paddington.

The 'anomaly' is that GWR prices its off-peak first class DID-PAD ticket at a premium of 175% over its equivalent standard one, whereas Southeastern prices DID-TON at a premium of only 55%. This is similar to the off peak first class premium it places on journeys from Kent to London.

Perhaps there's an argument flows that use both intercity and local trains should be priced by the intercity carrier in all cases (Intercity first class is normally more of an improvement compare with local first class). But that isn't the case.

One "loophole" allows a return from Reading to London in first class at peak times for £46 a day, half the price of a normal ticket. It's called "buy a season ticket". I wonder if such "loophole"ers get grief at the barriers.

 

[jon0844]

As I understand it, if your papers were in order, you could pass through Checkpoint Charlie. Doesn't sound like the case in Paddington.

Haha, that made me chuckle.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Perhaps there's an argument flows that use both intercity and local trains should be priced by the intercity carrier in all cases (Intercity first class is normally more of an improvement compare with local first class). But that isn't the case.

There is certainly an argument that the choice of setter needs to be less opaque and more objective. For example, one journey that I make regularly is priced by XC and therefore suffers their rules/restrictions, even though no part of the journey would ever be made on an XC train. (Fortunately, there's a trivial split which halves the cost and has looser restrictions.)

A simple rule which would improve the situation greatly would be that tickets should be priced by the operator with the greatest ORCATS share on that route.

 

[bnm]

A simple rule which would improve the situation greatly would be that tickets should be priced by the operator with the greatest ORCATS share on that route.

So, hypothetically, Didcot-Tonbridge could be GWR, based on ORCATS, but Didcot-Ashford Intl could be Southeastern. What would you're 'simple' rule give as an improvement?

ORCATS is already a pretty blunt instrument. Using it to determine flow ownership would still throw up many anomalies.

 

[PermitToTravel]

And there's also a large issue with tickets that can be used via London or avoiding it

 

[Doctor Fegg]

So, hypothetically, Didcot-Tonbridge could be GWR, based on ORCATS, but Didcot-Ashford Intl could be Southeastern. What would you're 'simple' rule give as an improvement?

ORCATS is already a pretty blunt instrument. Using it to determine flow ownership would still throw up many anomalies.

Oh, sure. It absolutely wouldn't be anything near a perfect solution, simply something with a clearer rationale, and less prone to anomalies, than the current system. Hence why I said "improve the situation", not "fix everything". I can think of a good half-dozen fares which I use that would be improved by such a change.

In an ideal world one would presumably have fares either determined as a weighted sum set by all the ORCATS beneficiaries for a particular route, or using an impartial centrally-set formula. Neither of those is likely to happen any time in the next n years, whereas a presumption that the chief ORCATS beneficiary becomes the fare setter could be implemented as a fix to the current situation reasonably easily. (Given that XC appear to have recently swiped control of another load of fares away from LM mid-franchise, it seems that fare setting isn't necessarily viewed as something integral to the commercial viability of a franchise...)

 

[talltim]

Off to Kent again later today. Back through Checkpoint Charlie Paddington around 5pm.

Wish me luck!

How did it go? You still negotiating with border control?

 

[bnm]

How did it go? You still negotiating with border control?

Denied 1800. On the 1830. DSM involved again.

 

[najaB]

Denied 1800. On the 1830. DSM involved again.

Staggeringly incompetent.

 

[Quakkerillo]

What an incompetency...

 

[talldave]

You should 'phone ahead and get the DSM to the barrier before you arrive!!!!

 

[talltim]

Do you ever see the DSM telling the gate staff that they have got it wrong?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Denied 1800. On the 1830. DSM involved again.

For goodness' sake.

 

[hounddog]

As a matter of interest how many different gateline staff are we talking about here? One or two 'bad apples' or significantly more?

 

[ainsworth74]

As a matter of interest how many different gateline staff are we talking about here? One or two 'bad apples' or significantly more?

I'm wondering that. Though if it was the same staff again and again you'd have thought they'd have got the message by now...

 

[miami]

Wouldn't it be interesting if the laws against passengers were applied to TOCs and their employees

Occasional mistake, a simple fine [sic] for the TOC, however persistently doing the same thing and you're looking at court action with a possibility of jail and a criminal record.

 

[jkdd77]

What an incompetency...

Whilst I do not consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist, I nonetheless begin to wonder, particularly in light of the recent e-mails, whether this is more than just incompetence, and whether one or more members of gateline staff are acting maliciously in knowingly denying travel to a valid ticket-holder.

If so, this might be considered an misleading commercial practice, an aggressive commercial practice, or even harassment, all of which are criminal offences.

If TOCs, including GWR, can prosecute over honest mistakes and 0p underpayments, it would not seem at all disproportionate for GWR to face prosecution themselves over their own crimes; albeit that I am not advising that bnm pursue a private prosecution at this stage, certainly not without taking formal legal advice.

It would, however, seem reasonable to mention these crimes in any letter of complaint to MPs, or to the DfT, and in any correspondence with GWR management.

 

[bnm]

Tonight was slightly different. I rocked up once the crowd had thinned so that I'd be free to explain validity. Default was still, "not valid". Even after pointing out the destination and mentioning 'F3'.

After the staff conference, including the supervisor I've had dealings with before, I was told I could board. However, that default position is still unnaceptable to me, so I again requested the DSM.

Yes, tonight I could have boarded my chosen train (just) but thought it best the DSM was again aware that I was initially denied.

"Not valid, youll need to upgrade" is wrong. "Let me just check" is right. I want the latter to be the default with that check taking no more than a minute or so. If I say the code is C4/F3 then that should be accepted. I shouldn't have to be told that the origin/destination will have to be checked on the TIS when the supervisor is free to do so. It also shouldn't be presumed that it is somehow my fault that the tickets I've purchased don't have the restriction code printed on them.

The DSM did agree to upgrade my entire journey tonight, which is something I suppose.

 

[talltim]

Were you to be already on a first class ticket, what could the DSM do for compensation?