Lost IAS appeal - is it worth pursuing further?

[jon0844]

I can see the error made when changing tickets. Sure, it's the OP's fault but a ticket seller wouldn't have made the same mistake (unless implicitly asked for a day return) and so it is down to a combination of the user and the machine.

The machines aren't great once you go beyond nice easy returns to London or Travelcards. Group save, railcard discounts and checking the restrictions (as I mentioned before, some descriptions have text missing or confusing).

I'm sure we've all seen times when using booking engines where the dates or times reset if you go back, sometimes even if you use the correct 'amend' option over the back button. You really need to be on your guard all the time, and that shouldn't really be necessary.

That's why I'd complain even if there was no demand for any sort of compensation, but rather to let the industry know it's time to bring TVMs into the smartphone world and learn from responsive user interfaces, which even two and three year olds can understand.

Edit: I should add that it's rather important to check your tickets before travel. It may have still been a PITA to sort out, but at worst it would have been a case of being the right ticket and claiming a refund later - avoiding any penalties at all.

 

[All Line Rover]

Even if he didn't, and the machine was at fault, he has still - by the rules - been correctly PF'd.

NRCoC 12 only comes into it if you agree that the PF rules say that you can't be PF'd if you have a completely expired ticket. I do not agree that is the intention of the wording - a ticket restricted by date or time is clearly meant to apply to Advances (and some older ticket types no doubt). A completely expired ticket is not covered by the wording; we can split hairs about that, but my point stands. Does anyone really think the PF rules give you immunity from PFs as long as you have a ticket for the route you're travelling on - even a really old, totally expired one - on your person?

I don't agree with that. If a TVM gives incorrect time restrictions for a walk-up ticket, it is hardly within the spirit of the rules for a Penalty Fare to be charged rather than an excess. I don't read Condition 12 of the NRCoC as being restricted to Advance tickets. Indeed the very next paragraph in Condition 12 explicitly mentions Advance tickets.

This is all beside the point for the OP, however. It's best to create a new thread if wanting to discuss the matter further.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would finally point out that the period within which you can use a ticket is covered wholly within Condition ELEVEN of the NRCoC. Condition 12 clearly does not deal with wholly expired tickets and I'm now satisfied I have closed this ridiculous argument down.

...

While the OP may (or may not) have grounds to complain about the TVM, we should be in no doubt that "I didn't know I had an expired ticket, wasn't clear" isn't a valid appeal route for a PF.

This is all very badly worded (as is much of the NRCoC).

Condition 11 says: "The period during which a ticket is valid is printed on the ticket or will be made clear to you when you buy your ticket" (is both not possible!?), which is different from Condition 12. However, Condition 12 says: "Restrictions apply to the use of some tickets in addition to/other than those in Condition 10 [TOC restrictions] such as the dates, days, and times when you can use them, and the trains in which they can be used. These restrictions will be made clear to you by the seller when you buy your ticket."

I'm also puzzled as to how paragraph 7.6 of the Penalty Fares Rules 2002 (quoted by 319321) is to be reconciled (if indeed it must be reconciled) with the final paragraph of Condition 12 of the NRCoC (19 July 2015), which reads:

"If you have an Off-Peak or Super Off-Peak ticket and board a train on which your ticket is not valid, you will only be charged the difference between the fare you have paid and the cheapest valid Anytime or Off-Peak fare for the service concerned. The same principle will apply if you wish to transfer to first class accommodation. This rule does not apply in designated Penalty Fares areas, where you may be required to pay a Penalty Fare.​

 

[319321]

That's why I'd complain even if there was no demand for any sort of compensation, but rather to let the industry know it's time to bring TVMs into the smartphone world and learn from responsive user interfaces, which even two and three year olds can understand.

But in July 2010 Passenger Focus wrote a report into "Ticket Vending Machine Usability" which made pretty much the same points we are talking about here.

They followed this up with a letter / presentation to Claire Perry in November 2014, which made the same points.

A year and half on, I cant see that much has changed.

 

[Agent_c]

The date written on it would only be viewable after the ticket had been printed, which is after it had been selected and paid for.

Lets say you had walked up to a machine. There was a sign on the machine, in a size 8 font, saying that all return tickets must be used today, regardless of whether or not they were issued as period returns or not. You didn't see that notice.

Thompson v London, Midland and Scotland Railway Co [1930] 1 KB 41

>>>The claimant was injured whilst stepping off a train. The railway company displayed prominent notices on the platforms excluding liability personal injury and damage to property due to negligence. The tickets also stated they were subject to terms and conditions displayed on the platform. The claimant was illiterate and could not read the signs. She argued that the exclusion clause was not incorporated into the contract as the railway company had not brought the clause to her attention at the time the contract was made.

Although that specific case on those specific facts would almost certainly be decided different today (it wouldn't meet Lord Denning's Red Hand test in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking), the principle that one does not have to read a contract or agree to all specific terms remains good law.

Whether or not it is in 8pt font or 18pt font is irrelevant (unless you're going for an argument that the term is particularly onerous. I don't think the validity expiration date meets the kind of situation Lord Denning was looking at in Shoe Lane Parking (that involved liability for injury)) - if the term is presented to you, as long as you have the ability to have it read to you, explained to you, or for you to read it yourself, the term is good.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't agree with that. If a TVM gives incorrect time restrictions for a walk-up ticket, it is hardly within the spirit of the rules for a Penalty Fare to be charged rather than an excess.

We can agree on this. Within the rules, but not the spirit of the rules. I have sympathy with the OP.

 

[All Line Rover]

We can agree on this. Within the rules, but not the spirit of the rules. I have sympathy with the OP.

Cheeky. Just because I said certain behaviour isn't within the spirit of the rules, doesn't mean I believe that behaviour to be within the rules.

But as I've already mentioned, I have no qualms (in the absence of further information) about the OP's treatment.

 

[319321]

Some quotes from the ATOC Retail Information Code of Practice:

More likely to comply with the Consumer Protection Regulations
At other points of sale, such as websites or ticket vending machines, passengers are prompted in such a way that they are made aware of the information that might be important to their decision and/or the ticket or tickets that are recommended to them are most appropriate to their needs, or allow them to choose the ones which are.

Less likely to comply with the Consumer Protection Regulations:
Options are presented to the passenger without having taken account of their specific needs and/or passengers are not made aware that there may be a more suitable ticket for their journey as a result.

If ony the machine had asked the OP when they needed to return.

 

[furlong]

Like the others here, I am not even slightly persuaded by the line of argument set out by 319321. Even if the machine's interface was a contributory factor, it would still ultimately be seen as your mistake, not the company's. Pay up, and if you feel strongly about the matter, try your luck with the customer services department, which, unlike the appeals body, would have the discretion to offer you a partial refund but of course might very well not do so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If only the machine had asked the OP when they needed to return.

Oh - absolutely - but that's all beside the point here, which is that, irrespective of our personal opinions about the fairness of the system, the overwhelming opinion on this thread is that the system supports a Penalty Fare issued in circumstances such as these to be upheld on appeal.

 

[Greenback]

I'm afraid I have to agree that the advice offered by 319321 is very poor. There is nothing controversial about it in my view, it is simply groundless and displays a lack of understanding of the references that have been quoted.

As 319321 said themselves, though, please look into it and come to your own conclusions. However, I'd be surprised if you agreed with 319321's conclusions, I regret to say.

It might be worth suggesting how the information on the screens at the TVM's may be improved. One obvious was is to make sure that it says 'Day Return' if it doesn't at the moment, while it's pretty much agreed that there is room for a great deal of improvement in many of these machines. A goodwill gesture may be forthcoming if you approach the matter politely, but I can't see the proposed letter by 319321 resulting in any kind of positive outcome.

moldfield, I fear you made a mistake when you assumed that the first class option was an open return. Lots of us jump to the wrong conclusion or make a wrong assumption from time to time, and these incidents can unfortunately have consequences. All I can say by way of advice is to check things out unless you are absolutely sure of what you will get at a TVM, examine the tickets that are printed carefully, and go and request a refund if they aren't exactly what you want.

On this occasion I think you have no choice other than to pay the PF.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If ony the machine had asked the OP when they needed to return.

I do think we need to follow DB's line with TVMs and offer a choice - "I know what I want", in which case all fares are listed whether valid or not, or "Help me choose a ticket" in which case a Trainline-like journey planner is offered and a ticket sold based on that.

 

[snail]

If ony the machine had asked the OP when they needed to return.

I don't use this particular type of TVM but the ones I have used display a confirmation screen stating the ticket's validity before you purchase. There is a lot of text so most will just press confirm without reading it. Without going through the process myself I suspect that the OP will have had three opportunities to read that the chosen ticket was a day return - firstly on the ticket choice screen, secondly on the confirmation screen and finally on the ticket itself.

 

[Flamingo]

But in July 2010 Passenger Focus wrote a report into "Ticket Vending Machine Usability" which made pretty much the same points we are talking about here.

They followed this up with a letter / presentation to Claire Perry in November 2014, which made the same points.

A year and half on, I cant see that much has changed.

Very interesting, but not relevant to the OP.

I think in this case, the OP is (in physics terms) attached to another object by an incline plane wrapped helically around an axis.

As everybody sensible said, pay the PF before it ends in tears...

 

[jon0844]

I do think we need to follow DB's line with TVMs and offer a choice - "I know what I want", in which case all fares are listed whether valid or not, or "Help me choose a ticket" in which case a Trainline-like journey planner is offered and a ticket sold based on that.

I've said that for ages. We can have machines that offer a wizard style service, as well as a 'fast ticket' option for regulars. A Wizard would find out when you want to go, come back, and even what route you'd like to take (which, considering a lot of people won't know what TOC runs what, would also make it a lot easier to get the cheapest ticket that's also actually valid).

At the moment, some of the warnings you get don't require you to actually confirm. A warning about needing my Gold Card is in small text that's easily missed (and part of the sentence is cut off as it is too long for the space it's written in!) and stuff like that is not, to me, acceptable as it means there's far too little usability testing.

I don't use this particular type of TVM but the ones I have used display a confirmation screen stating the ticket's validity before you purchase. There is a lot of text so most will just press confirm without reading it. Without going through the process myself I suspect that the OP will have had three opportunities to read that the chosen ticket was a day return - firstly on the ticket choice screen, secondly on the confirmation screen and finally on the ticket itself.

I wonder how many people rush through using a TVM because there are people behind, and the feeling that it's you - not the seller - creating a delay. People tutting, shifting around, and you end up skipping things you should read.

This isn't a problem where there are many machines lined up, and one queue, but it is a problem where machines are scarce - or split up so people queue for each individual machine.

I wonder if anyone has researched this?

 

[crehld]

Any meaningful advice to the OP appears to have been lost in the discussion on this thread. So for the sake of clarity and conciseness:

1. Unfortunately there are no grounds for further appeal of the penalty fare. Pay it as soon as possible.

2. Remember in future that you need to check the ticket is correct before travel. I agree this places the burden of responsibility on the passenger, which in my opinion is unfair given the railway's overly and needlessly complex fares structure is a creature wholly of its own creation and in some cases the confusing nature of ticket machines can lead people to make the wrong purchases, but that doesn't change the fact you still need to check the ticket you've been issued is the correct and valid for travel.

3. There is, I think, a legitimate complaint about the ticket machine if you found it confusing and you feel it led you to erroneously purchase the wrong ticket. If this is the case, and if you are so moved, write a letter of complaint to the company concerned. But do this only after the penalty fare has been settled.

Unless the OP has any further specific questions relating directly to their case, I'm really not sure what else can be gained by further discussion. If they do wish to have the thread re-opened please contact a member of Forum Staff with your request.