Is a more expensive routed ticket always valid via a cheaper route?

[TurbostarFan]

Fair enough, although I believe those easements were added after the service started running, so it was at least (nearly; I guess outboundary travelcards would have been valid as you say) the case that no fares were valid initially.

Am right in saying that travelling on a less expensive route is always valid on a ticket for a more expensive route?

 

[yorkie]

Am right in saying that travelling on a less expensive route is always valid on a ticket for a more expensive route?

If the excess is zero then I don't see how the original ticket could be considered anything other than valid, however if staff wish to faff around issue a zero excess, that's their prerogative.

For example Manchester to Glasgow Off Peak Return (SVR) via York £122.20 could be used via Carlisle (SVR £85.90) but you would not get any money back.

 

[alistairlees]

Is Nuneaton to York Any Permitted valid via Peterborough? There are both Any Permitted and via Peterborough fares. But Peterborough is not a mapped route.

 

[yorkie]

Is Nuneaton to York Any Permitted valid via Peterborough? There are both Any Permitted and via Peterborough fares. But Peterborough is not a mapped route.

No, but very few Guards are going to charge an excess fare as it's such a reasonable route.

 

[alistairlees]

No, but very few Guards are going to charge an excess fare as it's such a reasonable route.

Yet there are various threads on here where members are saying that "more expensive tickets are valid on routes where there are cheaper tickets". The fares for Any Permitted are sometimes more expensive than those via York, sometimes less so (depends on ticket type).

 

[OwlMan]

Is Nuneaton to York Any Permitted valid via Peterborough? There are both Any Permitted and via Peterborough fares. But Peterborough is not a mapped route.

Some fares are (you may need to get a zero fare excess)- first anytime return & single and standard anytime return via Peterborough cost less than Any Permitted. The other walk up fares are not valid as the via Peterborough costs more.

Simply put if an excess is not needed to make the ticket valid then it is valid (or needs a zero fare excess). If an excess is payable then it is not valid.

 

[alistairlees]

Some fares are (you may need to get a zero fare excess)- first anytime return & single and standard anytime return via Peterborough cost less than Any Permitted. The other walk up fares are not valid as the via Peterborough costs more.

Simply put if an excess is not needed to make the ticket valid then it is valid (or needs a zero fare excess). If an excess is payable then it is not valid.

Could you point me to the source please?

 

[TurbostarFan]

No, but very few Guards are going to charge an excess fare as it's such a reasonable route.

Is the Any Permitted fare more expensive than the Via Peterborough one?

 

[TurbostarFan]

Could you point me to the source please?

I think that might be in the ticketing guide on this forum.

 

[yorkie]

Yet there are various threads on here where members are saying that "more expensive tickets are valid on routes where there are cheaper tickets". The fares for Any Permitted are sometimes more expensive than those via York, sometimes less so (depends on ticket type).

If the fare paid is more expensive than the fare due then it's valid.

The only sensible fare for this journey is Off Peak, for which an excess can be charged (but in practice probably won't be).

Could you point me to the source please?

The excess fare rules state that an excess fare applies where the fare is higher, and the Routeing Guide Instructions says pretty much the same thing:

Where a journey is undertaken by an alternative route .... for which a higher fare applies, additional payment is required ...

If a lower fare applies, additional payment isn't required.

However this can be problematical where "Not via London" is more expensive than "+via London"; many staff are reluctant to issue a zero fare excess, yet without it London Underground staff are unlikely to allow a cross London transfer.

 

[TurbostarFan]

However this can be problematical where "Not via London" is more expensive than "+via London"; many staff are reluctant to issue a zero fare excess, yet without it London Underground staff are unlikely to allow a cross London transfer.

You are correct but am I right in saying that they have to issue the zero fare excess in that scenario?

I can understand why the LU staff are unlikely to allow a cross London transfer without one.

 

[gray1404]

I seem to remember a case in the D&P section where a person had a Via London ticket which was more expensive then a Not Via London ticket. The Cross Country guard took issue to their ticket and reported them and they received letters asking them to account for travelling without a valid ticket.

I also seem to remember the point in which their ticket was checked meant they actually could have been using that train for a via London journey and need to change trains.

 

[TurbostarFan]

I seem to remember a case in the D&P section where a person had a Via London ticket which was more expensive then a Not Via London ticket. The Cross Country guard took issue to their ticket and reported them and they received letters asking them to account for travelling without a valid ticket.

I also seem to remember the point in which their ticket was checked meant they actually could have been using that train for a via London journey and need to change trains.

Thank you very much for that, I do hope that this case never saw the inside of a courtroom!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I seem to remember a case in the D&P section where a person had a Via London ticket which was more expensive then a Not Via London ticket. The Cross Country guard took issue to their ticket and reported them and they received letters asking them to account for travelling without a valid ticket.

I also seem to remember the point in which their ticket was checked meant they actually could have been using that train for a via London journey and need to change trains.

No excess was necessary in that case for two reasons - firstly, the Routeing Guide says that you categorically can use a more expensive routed ticket on a cheaper route (though some easements disapply this for specific journeys, of which this wasn't one), and secondly, break of journey was permitted on the ticket used, and the journey could quite legitimately have been broken on the legs to and from London such that these joined up at Reading.

Train companies should be very careful before taking matters like this further.

 

[TurbostarFan]

No excess was necessary in that case for two reasons - firstly, the Routeing Guide says that you categorically can use a more expensive routed ticket on a cheaper route (though some easements disapply this for specific journeys, of which this wasn't one), and secondly, break of journey was permitted on the ticket used, and the journey could quite legitimately have been broken on the legs to and from London such that these joined up at Reading.

Train companies should be very careful before taking matters like this further.

Where can I find a list of these easements please? I feel that this would be very helpful in answering the question.

 

[JB_B]

I seem to remember a case in the D&P section where a person had a Via London ticket which was more expensive then a Not Via London ticket. The Cross Country guard took issue to their ticket and reported them and they received letters asking them to account for travelling without a valid ticket..

Was it this thread?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/facing-prosecution-xc-using-a-ticket-on-a-cheaper-route.121901/

 

[gray1404]

Yes..

 

[yorkie]

Was it this thread?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/facing-prosecution-xc-using-a-ticket-on-a-cheaper-route.121901/

Yes. The customer received threatening letters from Transport Investigations, who failed to understand the concepts in the case.

If I recall correctly the case did get as far as an initial hearing in court, but it was then dropped.

The customer refused the offer of free legal representation by a knowledgeable solicitor who I know, who would have been able to call on some excellent expert witnesses. The solicitor would then have pursued XC/TIL for damages, and that would have been their payment.

Instead the customer paid hundreds of pounds (it may even have been a 4 figure sum) to a specialist solicitor of their choice and never recovered any of the money as they did not pursue XC/TIL for damages.

I am aware of other botched threats by TIL; I'd like to see an investigation into malpractice by TIL.

Having a valid ticket does not guarantee a hassle free journey (in terms of false accusations and harassment made by staff who are responsible for inspecting tickets) on the UK rail network.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Yes. The customer received threatening letters from Transport Investigations, who failed to understand the concepts in the case.

If I recall correctly the case did get as far as an initial hearing in court, but it was then dropped.

The customer refused the offer of free legal representation by a knowledgeable solicitor who I know, who would have been able to call on some excellent expert witnesses. The solicitor would then have pursued XC/TIL for damages, and that would have been their payment.

Instead the customer paid hundreds of pounds (it may even have been a 4 figure sum) to a specialist solicitor of their choice and never recovered any of the money as they did not pursue XC/TIL for damages.

I am aware of other botched threats by TIL; I'd like to see an investigation into malpractice by TIL.

Having a valid ticket does not guarantee a hassle free journey (in terms of false accusations and harassment made by staff who are responsible for inspecting tickets) on the UK rail network.

You are quite correct, that is why it is a good idea to get an itinerary at the point of purchase.

 

[yorkie]

Where can I find a list of these easements please? I feel that this would be very helpful in answering the question.

For tickets routed "Any Permitted", this is documented in the Routeing Guide instructions on page 3:

An "any permitted" ticket cannot be used for travel on a route not listed in the Routeing Guide for which a higher priced route specific fare exists. It can be used on any route not listed in the Routeing Guide for which a lower priced route specific fare exists

I am struggling to find if it is explicitly stated for other routed fares, but NRCoT page 12 states:

If you make a journey by a route that is not valid you will be liable to pay an excess fare. The price for this will be the difference between the amount paid for the ticket you hold and the lowest price ticket available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel by that route

Arguably if a lower priced fare exists, the more expensive fare should be deemed valid. But if it is not, the worst that can happen is the customer is issued a zero fare change of route excess.

You are quite correct, that is why it is a good idea to get an itinerary at the point of purchase.

Obtaining a through itinerary for the journey being made can be useful for all sorts of reasons, including demonstrating that the trains did exist at the advertised times when the contract was made, and that the ticket(s) were valid at the time the contract was made, even if changes occur between the date of purchase and the date of travel.

As I said elsewhere:

...I have been made aware of an increasing number of instances where a passengers intended itinerary is no longer possible on the day, due to late notice changes to the timetable, and this has caused all sorts of hassle for customers, so my advice to anyone who wants peace of mind is to book their intended journey in one go if possible. This means the customer can easily produce evidence of a contract for a through journey.

If it's not possible, or the person making the booking and journey is confident in being able to resolve issues, then by all means book each leg separately.

While showing such an itinerary does not guarantee a hassle-free journey, and does not guarantee that the relevant train company won't continue to argue in the event of any dispute, it's certainly good evidence to have.

A good retailer will back a customer up, in the event that a train company claims the ticket was not valid for the journey for which it was sold.

The sort of disputes that can occur can be quite unbe

 

[gray1404]

I wonder if it is still XC pathetic policy to issue a TIR for every zero rated excess that is issued. I would argue that a customer is being wrongfully asked or forced to provide their name and address in these circumstances as they hold a valid ticket. The fact that staff employed to check ticket do not understand the ticketing rules and do not apply them correctly is not valid grounds to have reason belief the correct fare has not been paid thus requiring details.

 

[yorkie]

I wonder if it is still XC pathetic policy to issue a TIR for every zero rated excess that is issued. I would argue that a customer is being wrongfully asked or forced to provide their name and address in these circumstances as they hold a valid ticket. The fact that staff employed to check ticket do not understand the ticketing rules and do not apply them correctly is not valid grounds to have reason belief the correct fare has not been paid thus requiring details.

I heard the 'reason' they did this was because their machines were previously incapable of excessing any fare that had a cross-London marker on it. Not that any such excess was needed in this case anyway.

 

[TurbostarFan]

I wonder if it is still XC pathetic policy to issue a TIR for every zero rated excess that is issued. I would argue that a customer is being wrongfully asked or forced to provide their name and address in these circumstances as they hold a valid ticket. The fact that staff employed to check ticket do not understand the ticketing rules and do not apply them correctly is not valid grounds to have reason belief the correct fare has not been paid thus requiring details.

Correct, the law only requires that these details are provided when issuing a PF/UFN or reporting for summons. In any other circumstances the passenger does not have to provide the conductor with these details.

 

[TurbostarFan]

For tickets routed "Any Permitted", this is documented in the Routeing Guide instructions on page 3:

I've found it: http://iblocks-rg-publication.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/easement_text.pdf

 

[gray1404]

Correct, the law only requires that these details are provided when issuing a PF/UFN or reporting for summons. In any other circumstances the passenger does not have to provide the conductor with these details.

Useful to know, thank you. So a TIR is really internal and a customer does not need to provide any details - and this includes if XC are issuing one when a zero rated excess is issued. Thanks.

 

[yorkie]

Correct, the law only requires that these details are provided when issuing a PF/UFN or reporting for summons. In any other circumstances the passenger does not have to provide the conductor with these details.

Problem is they may call BTP. If the staff assure BTP that they believe the ticket is not valid and that the matter needs to be investigated, BTP are likely to require the customer to provide their details.

Useful to know, thank you. So a TIR is really internal and a customer does not need to provide any details - and this includes if XC are issuing one when a zero rated excess is issued. Thanks.

The problem is that if the Guard believes they have "reasonable" suspicion that your ticket isn't valid, they will believe they have the right to obtain your details.

Yes, they may be wrong, but try telling some people they're wrong and they won't have it, and BTP is likely to side with the staff.

It's a can of worms.

It is probably better to co-operate and if any loss is experienced, seek compensation/damages from the company after the event.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Problem is they may call BTP. If the staff assure BTP that they believe the ticket is not valid and that the matter needs to be investigated, BTP are likely to require the customer to provide their details.

The problem is that if the Guard believes they have "reasonable" suspicion that your ticket isn't valid, they will believe they have the right to obtain your details.

Yes, they may be wrong, but try telling some people they're wrong and they won't have it, and BTP is likely to side with the staff.

It's a can of worms.

It is probably better to co-operate and if any loss is experienced, seek compensation/damages from the company after the event.

You are 100%, BTP are different. If they require that you provide their details and make it clear that you are commiting an offence and/or could be arrested if you refuse to provide I would strongly advise cooperating with them. This applies whether you are dealing with a regular PC, a Special Constable or a PCSO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've found it: http://iblocks-rg-publication.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/easement_text.pdf

I understand why AWS is attractive, but really don't understand why organisations are too lazy to apply their domain name to it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I heard the 'reason' they did this was because their machines were previously incapable of excessing any fare that had a cross-London marker on it. Not that any such excess was needed in this case anyway.

Just yet another case of an Arriva TOC being poorly-managed and not properly following national convention and rules.

Though FWIW I think we need a sweep through the ticketing database to clean it up in this regard, moving higher priced routed tickets to become the Any Permitted and the Any Permitted to become a routed fare. It is downright silly to have a ticket that has printed on it "Only valid via London" which is valid via places that aren't London[1]. Route markers need to be accurate and clear.

[1] Yes, and the other ones - for instance, Route High Wycombe tickets should either be amended to be Route Princes Risborough (or Bicester North, or whatever you fancy along there, there's no shortage of choice of stations that would work) or should not actually be valid via Aylesbury other than during engineering diversions.

 

[woody505]

Say only one company runs the more expensive via route do they get all the money or does a % go to the another company just in case customer chooses to travel the cheaper via option?