Starting late on AP ticket for "administration fee"

[yorkie]

Interesting. What about if she indeed did have a Super Off Peak which is perfectly valid to board short ?

Then it's a scandal. Either way, it's a scandal. The scandal appears to be that AP tickets are available for a return price that is the same as the SSR. That should not be allowed, but ultimately the Government (not the present government obviously - I'll give them some time to fix these things) are at fault for allowing it.

This all highlights the complicated nature of the ticketing system in this country which is designed to catch the unsuspecting passenger out.

Agreed. Some rules and fares do appear to be designed to catch people out.

Personally I'd have got a ticket to North Road to gain access to the platform!!!

So would I.

The ticketing system on this countries railways needs sorting big style.

Be careful. Last time they pretended to sort out the ticket system, they lied and made it more complicated. Yes, ATOC lied. Passenger Toothless also requested it and yet did nothing whatsoever to protect customers. They are a spineless, pathetic organisation that is not truly independent.

If the conditions of the ticket state that is valid only from A to B, with no break of journey (including starting/finishing short) then why is that ridiculous?

Just because a condition exists, that doe not mean it is not ridiculous. I could list many rules and conditions in existence that are ridiculous.

Face it, you know that if the experts on here had the cash for good lawyers, we would have an excellent chance of getting many rail ticket rules deemed unfair and illegal. This is just one example out of many. Just because a rule exists, does not mean it is morally right, it does not mean it is enforceable, and it does not mean that it would stand up to scrutiny in court!

If a restaurant made up a rule saying you could get a meal for only £5 if you ate it all, and in reality someone left a little piece of it, that rule would (a) be ridiculed in the national press, (b) result in the restaurant getting massive negative publicity, and (c) not be legally enforceable. Other industries don't treat customers like they are inconvenient pieces of dirt to be dealt with. So why should the railway companies treat us like we're scum?

 

[reb0118]

If a restaurant made up a rule saying you could get a meal for only £5 if you ate it all, and in reality someone left a little piece of it, that rule would (a) be ridiculed in the national press, (b) result in the restaurant getting massive negative publicity, and (c) not be legally enforceable. Other industries don't treat customers like they are inconvenient pieces of dirt to be dealt with. So why should the railway companies treat us like we're scum?

I believe there was a restaurant in Newcastle that had a special menu and if you ordered a certain meal and eat it all then it was indeed FREE however if you left some on the plate you had to pay for the meal. They used to advertise in Viz quite a lot but I've not read Viz in a while as my mum says I'm not too. I'm 39 3/4.

 

[yorkie]

Blimey, I didn't think anyone would actually try that! What happened to it? Did they ever charge anyone for finishing 'short'?

"Sir, this is an Advance meal, therefore you are not permitted to break your meal, except to drink. Finishing your meal short constitutes a break of meal, and is not permitted. That'll be £30 please"

 

[tony_mac]

I have seen 'all you can eat' places advertising a surcharge for any plate of food you took but did not eat.
I rather doubt it is enforced, though.
And it is made clear to you before you order, not hidden in the terms and conditions, which you can't see, in obscure and contradictory terms.


When booking an advance ticket on eastcoast, it does mention 'and ticket terms and conditions' at the bottom of the payment page, but there is no further information provided as to what this even means - and there is no link to them on this page
.
There are two places on this page that you have to accept the 'general terms and conditions' - but that does not include the Advance ticket restrictions.

If you didn't know that you were looking for them, it is very likely that you wouldn't come across them when booking a ticket, and would think that the general terms and conditions and nrcoc would be the only things you should have read.

A significant condition should never be hidden in small print - it should be specifically pointed out to customers.
Even the nrcoc says the restrictions should be 'made clear....'

 

[cuccir]

Then it's a scandal. Either way, it's a scandal. The scandal appears to be that AP tickets are available for a return price that is the same as the SSR.

The £104 pound ticket is the super off peak return. It could be that she had advances returns adding up to £104, and was travelling at peak time.

 

[Greenback]

I have seen 'all you can eat' places advertising a surcharge for any plate of food you took but did not eat.
I rather doubt it is enforced, though.
And it is made clear to you before you order, not hidden in the terms and conditions, which you can't see, in obscure and contradictory terms.


When booking an advance ticket on eastcoast, it does mention 'and ticket terms and conditions' at the bottom of the payment page, but there is no further information provided as to what this even means - and there is no link to them on this page
.
There are two places on this page that you have to accept the 'general terms and conditions' - but that does not include the Advance ticket restrictions.

If you didn't know that you were looking for them, it is very likely that you wouldn't come across them when booking a ticket, and would think that the general terms and conditions and nrcoc would be the only things you should have read.

A significant condition should never be hidden in small print - it should be specifically pointed out to customers.
Even the nrcoc says the restrictions should be 'made clear....'

You are right - the restrictions are not made clear.

When you click on an advance fare, the information box that comes up informs you that the ticket is only valid on the chosen service, is not refundable and changeable prior to your first service for a fee. No mention at all about break of journey there!

When you click buy now, there is a link to terms and conditions where everything is spelt out, incluidng no break of journey and no starting or finishing short. There is another link to terms and conditions where you have to click you accept them, but that is to a totally different set of conditions, in which (as far as I can see) no mention is made of Advance tickets and their restrictions!

I am not surprised if people are unaware of the no break of journey rule! If they don't click on the first link, there is no way of finding out about it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The £104 pound ticket is the super off peak return. It could be that she had advances returns adding up to £104, and was travelling at peak time.

Yes, it could have been, we just don't know!

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, the no starting or ending short rule is indeed ridiculous and should be abolished. Since you've booked that journey and not taken up a portion of it, how is that different from those people who don't turn up at all - by the logic of this rule, shouldn't they be charged the full fare as well

 

[attics26]

quite agree all tickets with restrictions or rules attached should be abolished - just the one price for each journey - that being the maximum possible amount the TOC can get away with. Much easier for staff to check.

 

[sheff1]

quite agree all tickets with restrictions or rules attached should be abolished - just the one price for each journey

Some countries still operate this system. Makes things much easier for everyone - passengers and staff.

 

[yorksrob]

quite agree all tickets with restrictions or rules attached should be abolished - just the one price for each journey - that being the maximum possible amount the TOC can get away with. Much easier for staff to check.

Not at all. I can quite see the logic of restricting someone onto a pre-booked train for a cheaper fare (within reason), and if someone buys a ticket from A - C at the cheaper fare and then get's off at B, logic would suggest that they have forfeited their right to use that ticket to travel on the B to C portion of the journey. They then must purchase another ticket if they wish to continue. As far as I'm concerned, if someone purchases a ticket between two destinations they should have the right not to use part of that journey - because they have paid for the whole thing, just as they have the right not to use any of the journey for which they have paid.

 

[Railjet]

The £104 pound ticket is the super off peak return. It could be that she had advances returns adding up to £104, and was travelling at peak time.

As others have said, we don't know for certain, however I'm pretty sure she had advance tickets. Gill Charlton, the Telegraph reporter, is very good at checking out stories rigorously, and has been known to expose fake claims quite ruthlessly when the accuser's story has been shown to be full of half-truths.

 

[CarterUSM]

I believe there was a restaurant in Newcastle that had a special menu and if you ordered a certain meal and eat it all then it was indeed FREE however if you left some on the plate you had to pay for the meal. They used to advertise in Viz quite a lot but I've not read Viz in a while as my mum says I'm not too. I'm 39 3/4.

Sorry to go off topic, that was the Rupali restaurant (now curry capital) owned by the late Abdul Latif,Lorof Harpole!!! It was a challenge that involved you eating their famous mega hot Curry Hell dish, if you finished it, it was free.

 

[caughtonatrain]

Yes, the no starting or ending short rule is indeed ridiculous and should be abolished. Since you've booked that journey and not taken up a portion of it, how is that different from those people who don't turn up at all - by the logic of this rule, shouldn't they be charged the full fare as well

Given that the TOCs seem hell bent on adopting an airline style ticketing system I though it might be interesting to compare with Airline practice...

I frequently buy airline tickets (advance by their nature 99% of the time, and with nonref, nonchange restrictions) and stop short. I did this on a Madrid-Glasgow flight which was through ticketed and through-flight-numbered but which nevertheless involved a change of plane in Manchester. The BA staff were more than accommodating when I said I wanted to stop short in Manchester for conveniences sake. They even arranged for my baggage to be offloaded in Manchester instead of Glasgow.

More recently, on a multisegment flight I stopped short at Heathrow rather than taking a connecting flight up to Manchester. Again, not a problem.

Now, I understand that stopping short is not the same as getting on a later flight (which airlines would generally not allow) but if airlines can be flexible about some of these things, why can't the railways? The railways are just being punitive and are treating the public like scum - a public which is only generally trying to use common sense and 'natural law' to guide them rather than a deep understanding of the NCoC or byzantine fare structure. (There should be a Uni degree in travelling by train in this country. It's appalling and 10 x worse since 'simplification'.)

 

[Failed Unit]

Sorry to go off topic, that was the Rupali restaurant (now curry capital) owned by the late Abdul Latif,Lorof Harpole!!! It was a challenge that involved you eating their famous mega hot Curry Hell dish, if you finished it, it was free.

Yep, when I was a student we went in a group of 15. The whole meal was free so 15 curries + the curry hell, surely 15 students could do it between them. We failed. For the first 15 seconds you got the this isn't too bad, then it hit you like a hammer.

I guess in that respect the T's&C's are the same as the AP ticket.

1. You know the curry will be free if you eat it all.
2. If you don't you must pay for it.
3. If you decide to eat a different curry after the curry hell has been cooked you need to pay for them both. (however you could cancel the curry hell if you change you mind and order a different curry without penalty if you do before the chef starts cooking it and just pay the price of the new curry. )

I must admit that this AP ticket thing can hit you with a return more than the walk on quite easily. Just a round numbers example. You know you are travelling from York - London in the period covered by super-off peak, out week 1 back week 3

You book at AP ticket for week 1 on the day they open it costs £15, the off-peak return would be £50 so if you can do the same again you could save £20. Week 3 tickets open, but the cheapest AP ticket for this date is £40 (the open single is £45). You have already bought you £15 ticket, what do you do know just buy the super-off peak return for the extra flexibilty? Very easy to be caught out.

The other example I have seen on booking engines is the single walk on at £107 and an AP on the same train costing more I don't anyone would be caught out by that but the fact it exists is worrying and begs the question why!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given that the TOCs seem hell bent on adopting an airline style ticketing system I though it might be interesting to compare with Airline practice...

I frequently buy airline tickets (advance by their nature 99% of the time, and with nonref, nonchange restrictions) and stop short. I did this on a Madrid-Glasgow flight which was through ticketed and through-flight-numbered but which nevertheless involved a change of plane in Manchester. The BA staff were more than accommodating when I said I wanted to stop short in Manchester for conveniences sake. They even arranged for my baggage to be offloaded in Manchester instead of Glasgow.

More recently, on a multisegment flight I stopped short at Heathrow rather than taking a connecting flight up to Manchester. Again, not a problem.

Now, I understand that stopping short is not the same as getting on a later flight (which airlines would generally not allow) but if airlines can be flexible about some of these things, why can't the railways? The railways are just being punitive and are treating the public like scum - a public which is only generally trying to use common sense and 'natural law' to guide them rather than a deep understanding of the NCoC or byzantine fare structure. (There should be a Uni degree in travelling by train in this country. It's appalling and 10 x worse since 'simplification'.)

Would the airlines have allowed you to start short and get on at Heathrow if you had a connection from Manchester, I doubt it. The other comparison here is that you asked someone with the power. In the Darlington example the gaurd may have been OK but the barrier staff may not have been. You may be OK with BA to do this kind of thing but not BMI. As for Ryanair.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

You need to be careful about messing around with airline tickets though; typically a single on a given flight is about double the cost of a return journey which uses the exact same flight and seats booked at the same time, however:

a) If you fail to use the outward portion of an air ticket, the return half is automatically invalidated.

b) If you use only the outward half, especially on Atlantic flights, you might have some future problems visiting the USA as the information the Americans now demand 48 hours before travel includes the question of whether you have ever missed any flights...

 

[clagmonster]

I had a think and another look at the conditions of carriage and come up with:
"If you start, break and resume, or end your journey at an intermediate station
when you are not entitled to do so, you will be liable to pay an excess fare. This excess
fare will be the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of
the lowest priced ticket(s) available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to
start, break and resume, or end your journey at that station on the service(s) you have
used."
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

This doesn't give any exceptions to the rule, and the conditions of carriage are the minimum standard of service companies should offer, so trump the ticket conditions. Therefore, I believe the passenger should have been excessed for the difference between the price of a super saver single from Darlington-Kings Cross and the cost of his advance single.

 

[Username]

This doesn't give any exceptions to the rule, and the conditions of carriage are the minimum standard of service companies should offer, so trump the ticket conditions. Therefore, I believe the passenger should have been excessed for the difference between the price of a super saver single from Darlington-Kings Cross and the cost of his advance single.

With regards to exceptions to the rule, I think the third paragraph of the introduction in the NCoC covers it:

These Conditions set out your rights and any restrictions to those rights. The Train Companies may give you more extensive rights than those set out in these Conditions and, if they do so, these may be found in each Train Company’s Passenger’s Charter or other publications. Details of where you can find this information will be available when you buy your ticket. The Train Companies may not give you less extensive rights, except in the case of some types of reduced and discounted fare tickets where the relevant condition(s) specifically allow them to do so. These Conditions set out the minimum level of rights you are entitled to expect.

 

[clagmonster]

Yes, but condition 16, from which my quote was taken, does not give companies the right to not charge the excess.

 

[OwlMan]

Yes, but condition 16, from which my quote was taken, does not give companies the right to not charge the excess.

But the exemption quoted by Username is in the introduction and applies to all of the conditions. Where does it say that

conditions of carriage are the minimum standard of service companies should offer, so trump the ticket conditions

in the NCOC except in the paragraph qouted by Username.

Peter

 

[clagmonster]

The exemption provided by Username has the proviso:
"where the relevant condition(s) specifically allow them to do so"
Condition 16 does not specifically allow companies not to charge an excess in order to allow break of journey on any type of ticket, so companies must charge the excess rather than sell a new ticket.

My reading is that condition 16 is one of those cases in which break of journey would normally be allowed, but in the case of certain cheap tickets companies are allowed to dissallow this right however this is on the proviso that they allow passengers with cheap tickets to excess to the expensive ticket to allow them break of journey.

 

[Username]

The exemption provided by Username has the proviso:
"where the relevant condition(s) specifically allow them to do so"
Condition 16 does not specifically allow companies not to charge an excess in order to allow break of journey on any type of ticket, so companies must charge the excess rather than sell a new ticket.

My reading is that condition 16 is one of those cases in which break of journey would normally be allowed, but in the case of certain cheap tickets companies are allowed to dissallow this right however this is on the proviso that they allow passengers with cheap tickets to excess to the expensive ticket to allow them break of journey.

The proviso of "relevant conditions" refers those conditions of the Advance ticket which specifically allow the TOC to offer less extensive rights, as opposed to those rights which are set out in Condition 16.

The conditions of use for Advance tickets state:

"You must be at the departure station shown on your ticket in good time to catch the train. If you miss the first train on which you are booked for any reason, a new ticket must be purchased."

This would be the relevant condition of the Advance ticket type which specifically allowed the company to require a new ticket be purchased as she did not board at the station shown on the ticket and technically she therefore missed her train. The fact that she chose to does not alter the conditions as you're also not permitted to start your journey at intermediate stations either.

So, whereas it may be appropriate for other ticket types to be excessed under condition 16 of the NRCoC, the TOC are permitted to deny this for an Advance because the stated conditions for that ticket specifically allow them to and condition 16 does not apply.

 

[clagmonster]

Ah, I see, you have interpreted the word conditions as meaning any specific ticket conditions, as well as the conditions of carriage. This point is clarified in appendix A, a list of definitions:
"(c) “Condition(s)” means these National Rail Conditions of Carriage;"
so the phrase:
"The Train Companies may not give you less extensive
rights, except in the case of some types of reduced and discounted fare tickets where
the relevant condition(s) specifically allow them to do so."
could be paraphrased as:
The Train Companies may not give you less extensive
rights, except in the case of some types of reduced and discounted fare tickets where
the relevant clause(s) of these conditions of carriage specifically allow them to do so.

Thereofore, as condition 16 does not specifically allow companies not to excess any type of ticket to allow break of journey, the excess should be sold, without an administration fee. The conditions of the ticket are not relevent to this point, apart from the fact that the original ticket does not allow break of journey.

 

[Username]

This point is clarified in appendix A, a list of definitions:
"(c) “Condition(s)” means these National Rail Conditions of Carriage;":

I see your confusion.

Yes the use of the word Condition(s) with an upper case/capital letter 'C' means the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. It means that any time they use the word Conditions with a capital letter you're intended to read it as 'The National Rail Conditions of Carriage"

However, the use of the word conditions with a lower case 'c' does not mean the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. It just means a condition.


Take paragraph three of the Introduction:

These Conditions set out your rights and any restrictions to those rights. The Train Companies may give you more extensive rights than those set out in these Conditions and, if they do so, these may be found in each Train Company’s Passenger’s Charter or other publications. Details of where you can find this information will be available when you buy your ticket. The Train Companies may not give you less extensive rights, except in the case of some types of reduced and discounted fare tickets where the relevant condition(s) specifically allow them to do so. These Conditions set out the minimum level of rights you are entitled to expect.


All the capitalised "Conditions" above are intended to be read as "the National Rail Conditions of Carriage".

The lower case condition(s) mentioned above refers to the ticket conditions, not the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. That's why it's not capitalised. Or did you think that was a typo?


"The Train Companies may not give you less extensive rights, except in the case of some types of reduced and discounted fare tickets where the relevant condition(s) specifically allow them to do so"

Each ticket type has it's own list of conditions for it's use. Overall the treatment a passenger can expect to receive is outlined under the National Rail Conditions of Carriage (Conditions - capital 'C') and TOCs are bound by these except in certain circumstances where, because it's a cheap ticket, they can attach conditions upon the ticket which permit them to give less extensive rights to the passenger than the Conditions of Carriage would otherwise demand.

So the condition "miss your train, buy a new ticket" overrules the National Rail Conditions of Carriages' condition 16.

 

[MKB]

Gill Charlton, the Telegraph reporter, is very good at checking out stories rigorously, and has been known to expose fake claims quite ruthlessly when the accuser's story has been shown to be full of half-truths.

I had to chortle reading that. Surely a joke? Gill Charlton is possibly the worst travel advisor in print. In our household, a game we play every Saturday is to spot the howlers in the advice she gives.

 

[Railjet]

I had to chortle reading that. Surely a joke? Gill Charlton is possibly the worst travel advisor in print. In our household, a game we play every Saturday is to spot the howlers in the advice she gives.

Your family must have worldwide, encyclopaedic knowledge of the travel business, then. Perhaps you should suggest to the Telegraph that you take over her role en masse?

 

[MKB]

Your family must have worldwide, encyclopaedic knowledge of the travel business, then. Perhaps you should suggest to the Telegraph that you take over her role en masse?

You ARE Gill Charlton, and I claim my £100!

Seriously, you don't have to be particularly well travelled to spot where she gets it wrong.

 

[Railjet]

You ARE Gill Charlton, and I claim my £100!

:eek:

Seriously, you don't have to be particularly well travelled to spot where she gets it wrong.

Well, I'm sure that if she were as error-prone as you claim, the Telegraph would have ditched her long ago, not least because of the high risk of libel - especially when there are big corporate names involved.