When using an advance ticket, do you have to use it EXACTLY as specified....

[OwlMan]

I am a fan of the Wrexham & Shropshire - simple, reasonable and uncomplicated fare structure.

But it is easy to have a simple fare structure for 1 route with a handful of trains in each direction all calling at the same stations.
It is more difficuylt for the TOCs

Peter

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Define "the correct fare". I could argue that the TOCs rarely charge the "correct" fare, given that a fare from A to C can essentially be the sum of A to B, and B to C, and yet cost more than that sum. If you are going to say a passenger going A to B on an A to C ticket is not paying the "correct" fare, then surely the TOC is doing likewise and the TOC should be prosecuted as a result of overcharging?....

The 'correct fare' is the price of the ticket you would have paid if you bought a ticket for that journey. I think you are clutching at straws there. I dare say if I used the term 'full fare', you'd try to pick a hole in that too.

....Buying a 4-pack multipack for £1, and consuming only 3 cans, when each can normally costs 40p each, is shoplifting then? ....

Even for you, that is a pathetic example, is it a condition of buying the cans that you consume all the contents? Is it a further condition that you pay a fee to consume less in addition to the difference in cost of the cans you bought and three seperate cans that you consumed?

....My opinion is that, the way the rules are, it is not 'fine' ....

So, the way the rules are, you agree that it is fare evasion?

....however it is my belief (IANAL) that if we had enough cash and access to good, experienced lawyers, we could present a very good challenge to numerous unfair terms in the courts....

In what way are the terms unfair?

You agreed to travel from point A to point B on a given train (or trains), not from point C, D, E or even F. You changed your plans and the conditions of the ticket (that you agreed to by buying the ticket) say that changing your plans costs extra.

If you wanted to travel from point C, D, E or even F, there are valid tickets to do that, but by buying a fare that is not valid for your journey, you are attempting to avoiding paying the correct fare. Infact, if you KNOW the ticket you require is more expensive then you are DELIBERATELY not paying the correct fare for your journey.

....I also believe that when TOCs catch people doing things that are technically against the terms but outrage the general public, they will back down....

Ofcourse they will, public image and all that, but it doesn't mean the passengers are right.

....Fact is, people have started short, been given an unfair (but technically within the rules) fare that is a fine in all but name, and the TOC was forced to make a u-turn to avoid further negative publicity.....

That is the choice of the TOCs though, not a right to avoid paying the fare.

....The TOCs do not always win against the general public....

By logic then, the general public do not always win against the TOCs.



So Yorkie, at what point is fare evasion acceptable?

 

[RJ]

Wow:eek:, all I can say is you are one very lucky person in not only are you still able to use a Zip Card but also have access to a company car!

Yes, still got a Zip Card. My cost of commuting for the last few years has actually been closer to zero as I could/still can take the bus for free. The Travelcard is primarily for leisure use, I only buy it if I can justify it. Otherwise I go by bus and make occasional use of a Y-P Oyster I have.

This is turning into a very interesting philosophical debate about whether one should obey every rule to the letter in every circumstance regardless of the wider context!

That depends. One must assess the risks involved with travelling on an invalid ticket and and trade that off against the difference between buying the cheapest valid ticket(s) and buying a dodgy set of tickets. The key factor is reliance upon the retail staff's inability to analyse a ticket properly,
lack of knowledge or discretion. Certainly not a solid foundation to hedge such bets on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. For the purposes of this forum I'll try to offer advice that guarantees that one won't be invalid as opposed to telling people what they want to hear - i.e travel on a cheaper but invalid ticket and hope that the guard/RPI lets you off. I imagine in reality that retail staff excise some discretion but it's a risky game to leave yourself at the mercy of their whims. Some will be apathetic, others will throw the book at you, that's a given. They are not pre-programmed robots after all. However, this does not change the passenger's responsibility to hold a valid ticket/set of tickets.

All fair points. All I'm saying is that in this instance discretion should become convention, preferably backed up by a change in the conditions of carriage in effect making it always allowable to stop or start short on any ticket at any scheduled station stop.

So you're saying it should be made official that people using Advance tickets can reserve seats that they have no intention of using for a considerable distance?
In that case they'd have to change the conditions of the Advance tickets to allow Break of Journey. What do you think the price impact will be on those who are happy to use Advance tickets under their current T&Cs?
I certainly wouldn't want to be denied a cheap Advance ticket because a few indecisive people complained that the rules were too rigid.

 

[Mr Spock]

Yes, still got a Zip Card. My cost of commuting for the last few years has actually been closer to zero as I could/still can take the bus for free. The Travelcard is primarily for leisure use, I only buy it if I can justify it. Otherwise I go by bus and make occasional use of a Y-P Oyster I have..

If you don't mind me asking can you say how you still qualify for a Zip card?

 

[RJ]

If you don't mind me asking can you say how you still qualify for a Zip card?

I meet the necessary criteria that TfL specify for the 16+ Zip card.

 

[yorkie]

The 'correct fare' is the price of the ticket you would have paid if you bought a ticket for that journey. I think you are clutching at straws there. I dare say if I used the term 'full fare', you'd try to pick a hole in that too.

The TOCs use the term, I am in effect having a go at them and not you

But from what you say loads of people do not buy the 'correct' fare as they do not buy 'a ticket' for their journey, they may combine tickets...

Even for you, that is a pathetic example, is it a condition of buying the cans that you consume all the contents? Is it a further condition that you pay a fee to consume less in addition to the difference in cost of the cans you bought and three seperate cans that you consumed?

Tell you what, if you want to put the cans to the test, you open an online shop selling multipacks and make it a condition that all the cans have to be consumed. I'll then buy a multipack, ignore the conditions and tell you I have given one away. You then sue me, and see what happens?

So, the way the rules are, you agree that it is fare evasion?

Breaking a condition of a ticket is not necessarily 'fare evasion'. In the case of using a ticket 'short' I would be extremely surprised if a court ruled that this was fare evasion. I note that companies like GNER who took issue with starting 'short' backed down in all known cases. That is very interesting.

In what way are the terms unfair?


You agreed to travel from point A to point B on a given train (or trains), not from point C, D, E or even F. You changed your plans and the conditions of the ticket (that you agreed to by buying the ticket) say that changing your plans costs extra.

We've been through this many times before. It is subjective, but I believe it is unfair. Tell me this: say I was delayed from London to York and missed the last Harrogate train, on a ticket to Poppleton. If I decide not to take up the offer of a taxi and cycle to Poppleton instead, am I then evading the fare by stopping 'short'?

If you wanted to travel from point C, D, E or even F, there are valid tickets to do that, but by buying a fare that is not valid for your journey, you are attempting to avoiding paying the correct fare. Infact, if you KNOW the ticket you require is more expensive then you are DELIBERATELY not paying the correct fare for your journey.

This isn't really the argument though is it? It's about BOJ. If it's purely about fares for longer distances undercutting shorter distances, then it's a null and void argument as we know that is perfectly legit on most ticket types! It's cheaper to do York-Mexborough than York-Donny if returning a different day, this is not the so-called "correct" (I have to laugh at that term the TOCs use ) fare is it? I would counter-argument it by saying the York-Donny fare is, in fact, "incorrect"

Ofcourse they will, public image and all that, but it doesn't mean the passengers are right.

That is the choice of the TOCs though, not a right to avoid paying the fare.

By logic then, the general public do not always win against the TOCs.

These are standard 'get out' replies that do nothing to dismiss the strong evidence I posted of what actually has happened when people don't adhere to unfair (in the opinion of many people, I accept you don't share this view) terms on Advance conditions.

So Yorkie, at what point is fare evasion acceptable?

Has anyone been prosecuted for fare evasion when starting short? No? 'Cos it aint fare evasion! I have provided evidence of the most desperate TOC at that time, GNER, caving in when people did that. Now it's time for your evidence to be submitted
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've said it before and I'll say it again. For the purposes of this forum I'll try to offer advice that guarantees that one won't be invalid ....

That's cool

I am not going to suggest people start short either, I am only entering the debate because it was already suggested, I am with you in that only valid suggestions should be given.

Having met you several times, I believe 4SRKT's criticism of you is unfair and inaccurate, but having met him too, I can say he probably didn't mean it

There is a problem though in that what is deemed valid may differ from person to person.

My main issues are with people like HHF who suggest that not adhering to a term (that many deem unfair) means they are a criminal. However I agree with you that we shouldn't recommend people break these terms, however unfair they seem.

 

[MCR247]

I don't get what this discussion is for really, I haven't read the whole thread but this is my 2p worth:

Advance fare. The point of it is its a cheap ticket that is very helpful for long distance routes. It is a ticket from A - Z. It is not valid for BOJ at G, therefore you can't leave early. Now, for most people, advance tickets are fine, and are adequate.

What is really annoying me is people using shops as an example or something to hide behind, because it is a totally different situation. You can't say, but if I bought a can of coke, and I didn't drink it all then it is fine. They wont force me to drink the rest.

But when you buy the can of coke, it is then yours. It is your property. You are free to do what ever you feel like with it. You can drink it, you can throw it at someone, you can chuck it away.

But when you buy a train ticket, does the seat/space on the train become your property? Can you do whatever you want with it? If it was in the news that a perfectly sober businessman had a pee on his seat, he didn't pee himself, he got up and had a pee on it, then couldn't he say, well if I went to asda to buy a sofa, the store manager isn't going to sue me for peeing on it if I felt like it?

Would you then agree with him?

I hope not

When you buy the ticket, you are accepting the T&Cs, whether you like them or not.

Anyway, just my view

Marcus

 

[Zoe]

At the end of the day advance fares are dirt cheap so you should expect to have to put up with the terms and conditions that apply.

 

[87 027]

The bigger question (which I doubt we are going to resolve on this thread but I think is a fair one to air nonetheless) is really about the illogicality of a ticketing system which (1) has an advance fare from one station but not the station next door, and (2) the price differential involved. Are the good folk of Prestatyn so much more hard up that they need enticing onto the train at much lower fares than travellers from Flint can afford?

I wonder if there is an analogy with the UK tax system. Moaning about how unfair the rules seem won't get you anywhere. Far more profitable to exploit the loopholes if you have the know-how (bankers' bonus tax anyone?)

 

[yorkie]

I don't get what this discussion is for really, I haven't read the whole thread but this is my 2p worth:

Advance fare. The point of it is its a cheap ticket that is very helpful for long distance routes. It is a ticket from A - Z. It is not valid for BOJ at G, therefore you can't leave early. Now, for most people, advance tickets are fine, and are adequate.

But this misses the points made in the thread.

Just because a ticket is not valid for BOJ, does not mean you can't "leave early". For example, a cross-London transfer does allow you to "leave early" at an intermediate tube station, but it is then considered 'expired' and cannot be used to resume.

If you get to Nottingham too late to take an onward train to your destination, and have the offer of a lift, are you doing something wrong by taking it and not accepting the offer of an onward taxi?

What is really annoying me is people using shops as an example or something to hide behind, because it is a totally different situation. You can't say, but if I bought a can of coke, and I didn't drink it all then it is fine. They wont force me to drink the rest.

But when you buy the can of coke, it is then yours. It is your property. You are free to do what ever you feel like with it. You can drink it, you can throw it at someone, you can chuck it away.

But when you buy a train ticket, does the seat/space on the train become your property? Can you do whatever you want with it? If it was in the news that a perfectly sober businessman had a pee on his seat, he didn't pee himself, he got up and had a pee on it, then couldn't he say, well if I went to asda to buy a sofa, the store manager isn't going to sue me for peeing on it if I felt like it?

Would you then agree with him?

I hope not

Well the OP said Mars bars, I just wrote cans instead, but whatever is used, it may not be "the same" situation, but then your justifications for why it is different go off on a tangent and describe what could be considered causing damage, and could theoretically happen in the shop example too.

When you buy the ticket, you are accepting the T&Cs, whether you like them or not.

Anyway, just my view

Marcus

But HHF says that if you don't adhere to the T&Cs you are "evading" the fare, however we have documented evidence that when people do not adhere to these particular T&Cs, the TOCs do not accuse you of "evading" the fare, and when challenged they back down, because the media and general public, in general, appear to agree that the T&Cs are unfair when it comes to starting/finishing 'short', and let's not forget that the right to start/finish short is in the NCoC. It is only these particular ticket types that do not permit it, and people have every right to give reasons why they do not believe it to be a fair term in their opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At the end of the day advance fares are dirt cheap so you should expect to have to put up with the terms and conditions that apply.

This is totally unfair.

When I wrote to XC to complain at the huge cost of walk-on day travel from York to Birmingham, their reply was that the cheap walk-on tickets had been replaced with Advance tickets.

The view that you can replace a walk-on product with an Advance product and claim they are comparable, and the view that we should "Put up with" the terms of the Advance product are incompatible with each other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
BTW, I would like to add that the price of Advance tickets from YRK - BHM is not "dirt cheap" at all, and is actually more expensive, generally, than walk-on travel used to be on that route, before the fares started getting hiked up massively.

The walk-on ticket was supposedly "protected" by law, however the TOCs have exploited loopholes in this "protection", rendering it virtually worthless in many cases.

See this thread regarding YRK - BHM, and bear in mind this is a fare that was supposedly "protected" by law. Face it, the TOCs act disgracefully and look for loopholes to get around the law that is supposedly protecting our interests.

 

[Zoe]

BTW, I would like to add that the price of Advance tickets from YRK - BHM is not "dirt cheap" at all, and is actually more expensive, generally, than walk-on travel used to be on that route, before the fares started getting hiked up massively.

The walk-on ticket was supposedly "protected" by law, however the TOCs have exploited loopholes in this "protection", rendering it virtually worthless in many cases.

I completely agree with you and it's one of my pet hates that the cost of walk-on fares have gone through the roof in recent years. When FGW scrapped the Super Saver in 2006, their defece was that even cheaper advance fares were introduced. In many cases train travel has never been as cheap as it is now for advance fares but at the same time for walk-on fares it has never been as expensive as it is now.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't get what this discussion is for really, I haven't read the whole thread but this is my 2p worth:

Advance fare. The point of it is its a cheap ticket that is very helpful for long distance routes. It is a ticket from A - Z. It is not valid for BOJ at G, therefore you can't leave early. Now, for most people, advance tickets are fine, and are adequate.

What is really annoying me is people using shops as an example or something to hide behind, because it is a totally different situation. You can't say, but if I bought a can of coke, and I didn't drink it all then it is fine. They wont force me to drink the rest.

But when you buy the can of coke, it is then yours. It is your property. You are free to do what ever you feel like with it. You can drink it, you can throw it at someone, you can chuck it away.

But when you buy a train ticket, does the seat/space on the train become your property? Can you do whatever you want with it? If it was in the news that a perfectly sober businessman had a pee on his seat, he didn't pee himself, he got up and had a pee on it, then couldn't he say, well if I went to asda to buy a sofa, the store manager isn't going to sue me for peeing on it if I felt like it?

Would you then agree with him?

I hope not

When you buy the ticket, you are accepting the T&Cs, whether you like them or not.

Anyway, just my view

Marcus

Sorry, MCR247

This is claptrap.

None of us have advocated expelling bodilly fluids over rolling stock.

 

[yorkie]

Sorry, MCR247

This is claptrap.

None of us have advocated expelling bodilly fluids over rolling stock.

To be fair to MCR247, he isn't saying we are. He is saying that the buying items examples are not comparable with buying tickets, and using this to demonstrate why it isn't the same thing. I agree with him it's not the same, but there are similarities, however the example he gives is not a case of disregarding terms agreed to when making a purchase, but an example of unacceptable behaviour that could be considered criminal damage, therefore IMO can't be used as an example of why our examples can't be used. (I think!)

 

[Username]

The bigger question (which I doubt we are going to resolve on this thread but I think is a fair one to air nonetheless) is really about the illogicality of a ticketing system which (1) has an advance fare from one station but not the station next door, and (2) the price differential involved. Are the good folk of Prestatyn so much more hard up that they need enticing onto the train at much lower fares than travellers from Flint can afford?

I wonder if there is an analogy with the UK tax system. Moaning about how unfair the rules seem won't get you anywhere. Far more profitable to exploit the loopholes if you have the know-how (bankers' bonus tax anyone?)

I believe you're right, I don't think it will be resolved on this thread. Personally I have no solid information on the criteria used to decide where to introduce advance tickets on a route. Demand? Passenger flows? Sticking pins in a map? Anyone?

However, unless an advance fare is generated between any two stations in order to cover all possible journey permutations then you're always going to have a situation where someone can ask "why can I get an advance ticket from 'x' but not from 'y'?" And wouldn't this just create an awful lot of additional tickets, many of which may never be in demand?

That's not to mention people who want period returns between two stations where only day returns exist, requiring them to buy two separate singles at greater cost . . . so there's more tickets to add to the system . . .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be fair to MCR247, he isn't saying we are. He is saying that the buying items examples are not comparable with buying tickets, and using this to demonstrate why it isn't the same thing. I agree with him it's not the same, but there are similarities, however the example he gives is not a case of disregarding terms agreed to when making a purchase, but an example of unacceptable behaviour that could be considered criminal damage, therefore IMO can't be used as an example of why our examples can't be used. (I think!)

If I understand him . . . he means peeing over the sofa after you've bought it and taken it home. I don't see where that would be criminal damage considering it's your own sofa. (though the wife might not be best pleased)
His point being, you can do what you like with your coke (or sofa) once it's legally yours and in your possession, but that the service of being transported is never 'yours' to do with as you please.

I think.

I dunno, it's late

 

[MCR247]

If I understand him . . . he means peeing over the sofa after you've bought it and taken it home. I don't see where that would criminal damage considering it's your own sofa. (though the wife might not be best pleased)
His point being, you can do what you like with your coke (or sofa) once it's legally yours and in your possession, but that the service of being transported is never 'yours' to do with as you please.

I think.

I dunno, it's late

Yes, thats exactly what I meant

 

[yorkie]

If I understand him . . . he means peeing over the sofa after you've bought it and taken it home. I don't see where that would be criminal damage considering it's your own sofa. (though the wife might not be best pleased)
His point being, you can do what you like with your coke (or sofa) once it's legally yours and in your possession, but that the service of being transported is never 'yours' to do with as you please.

I think.

I dunno, it's late

Yes, I realise that, but I'm saying that doing something that is enshrined as a right in the NCoC unless stated by some small print term, on a ticket that has that unfortunate small print term, cannot be compared to carrying out an unsociable act of criminal damage. Indeed, quite the opposite.

Also when you say you can do what you like with the item, is that actually true? Can I re-sell a multipack can that has "Not for sale individually"? Can I sell copies of a CD that is copyrighted? I have a feeling that the "you can do what you like with anything you buy except travel tickets because they're different" argument has hit the buffers

 

[Username]

Yes, I realise that, but I'm saying that doing something that is enshrined as a right in the NCoC unless stated by some small print term, on a ticket that has that unfortunate small print term, cannot be compared to carrying out an unsociable act of criminal damage. Indeed, quite the opposite.

Also when you say you can do what you like with the item, is that actually true? Can I re-sell a multipack can that has "Not for sale individually"? Can I sell copies of a CD that is copyrighted? I have a feeling that the "you can do what you like with anything you buy except travel tickets because they're different" argument has hit the buffers

It's not really enshrined if it's not permitted and therefore not a right now is it? There's little point referring to the NRCoC to support the position that a break of journey is an inalienable right when the NRCoC clearly states "these rights may not apply to some types of tickets for which a break of journey is prohibited"

And where is the unsociable criminality in damaging your own possession?

I dropped a bowl in the kitchen the other day. It broke. It was mine. What crime did I commit?
I burned dinner too. That'll be arson then?
I replaced the blinds in the bedroom. I took the old ones down and had to break them into pieces in order to dispose of them. Malicious mischief?

True. if you do anything like the above to someone elses' property then you might be in trouble but I'm pretty sure the police wouldn't be interested if you called them and confessed to peeing on your own sofa. But by all means try it. I'll pay for the call.

As for your references to item purchases above (multipack can, copyright infringement) these examples probably come closer to travel tickets in that they patently do come with conditions. They just don't come with as many, nor is there anyone liable to check up on the fact that you are adhering to them.

But yes, I'd say I can do what I like with any items I legally own, on the proviso that I do not break any restrictions stated as conditions of their original sale to me, or break any other law.

Much the same way I can do what I like with my journey (within reason, e.g. use it or stay at home) on the same proviso that I do not break any restrictions applicable as conditional terms within the contract I agree to when I pay the TOC for the service they provide.

Personally I never really saw where the argument of ownership of articles versus contractual services came into it anyway, but then I'm not the one who brought up cans of coke in a discussion about ticket validities the first place

 

[yorksrob]

So you're saying it should be made official that people using Advance tickets can reserve seats that they have no intention of using for a considerable distance?
In that case they'd have to change the conditions of the Advance tickets to allow Break of Journey. What do you think the price impact will be on those who are happy to use Advance tickets under their current T&Cs?
I certainly wouldn't want to be denied a cheap Advance ticket because a few indecisive people complained that the rules were too rigid.

Yes, that's about it. I'd like it to be made official. Obviously the railway's would still rather sell a seat at a quieter time than have it travelling around the country empty so no, I don't think advanced fares would be affected that much at all.

The point about breaking a journey is entirely irrelevant to this discussion by the way, as it implys resuming the journey at a later point and taking up a seat that has not been bought or paid for later on. This discussion is about starting and stopping short.

 

[Username]

The point about breaking a journey is entirely irrelevant to this discussion by the way, as it implys resuming the journey at a later point and taking up a seat that has not been bought or paid for later on. This discussion is about starting and stopping short.

Not so. The clause on break of journey includes and incorporates starting or ending your journey short, as covered in section 16 of the NRCoC.

**16. Starting, breaking or ending a journey at intermediate stations

You may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) at any intermediate station, as long as the ticket you hold is valid for the trains you want to use. You may also end your journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) before the destination shown on the ticket. However, these rights may not apply to some types of tickets for which a break of journey is prohibited, in which case the relevant Train Companies will make this clear in their notices and other publications.

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.**


You can argue that using the term "break of journey" is lazy shorthand but not that it is irrelevant as the term is seen to cover all aspects within the relevant section of the NRCoC.

 

[Flamingo]

Originally Posted by yorkie
People who do that will be asked to explain their actions by their managers, they will have complaints made against them, they will be at greater risk of assault, they will suffer more stress, they will cost their company more money and they will put their own customers off... in my opinion. In a decent organisation, they'll soon learn not to do that.

I used to know of a guard like that!!
Sadly (for him) he just didn't seem able to 'learn not to do that'. I'm not sure where he's working now, but it's not for the railway.

You are wrong, he is now a crew manager!

 

[yorksrob]

I've already stated that I believe the conditions of carriage need to be changed. Breaking of journey should be treated differently because it implies getting back on another train for which one hasn't got a ticket. This is different from not getting on a train for which one hasn't got a ticket.

Saying that this is the same thing is clearly nonsensical whether in the CoC or not.

 

[radamfi]

One philosophical variant to the discussion is:

If it is assumed that using a car when there is a perfectly reasonable rail alternative is immoral and anti-social, then is it worse to buy the Advance ticket and end journey early or start journey late, or to drive?

 

[Flamingo]

To continue the discussion on short-travelling, on evening trains from Paddington, a lot are "Off-peak only beyond X" for the longer inter-city journeys.

If passengers buy a ticket to Y (off-peak and further, but £40 cheaper) but only intend to travel to X, is this fraud or not?

One point to take into consideration is if enough people do this, should the TOC mount a regular blockade at X and excess all passengers exiting at X with a ticket to Y? (regardless of excuses, phone-calls from wives to meet them / sick children etc).

Or would the TOC then be justified in making all peak-time trains Anytime ticket only to the final destination to close the loophole, thereby inconveniencing the passengers who are legitimately travelling to Y and Z?

Any thoughts?

 

[87 027]

One philosophical variant to the discussion is:

If it is assumed that using a car when there is a perfectly reasonable rail alternative is immoral and anti-social, then is it worse to buy the Advance ticket and end journey early or start journey late, or to drive?

I like this!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If passengers buy a ticket to Y (off-peak and further, but £40 cheaper) but only intend to travel to X, is this fraud or not?

One point to take into consideration is if enough people do this, should the TOC mount a regular blockade at X and excess all passengers exiting at X with a ticket to Y? (regardless of excuses, phone-calls from wives to meet them / sick children etc).

Or would the TOC then be justified in making all peak-time trains Anytime ticket only to the final destination to close the loophole, thereby inconveniencing the passengers who are legitimately travelling to Y and Z?

Q1. Yes

Q2. Yes. Morally I would see a distinction between an attempt to circumvent the higher fare from the outset, and a situation arising en route which might necessitate an unintended change of plan. The TOC staff might get fed up of distinguishing genuine stories from people trying it on, but I doubt there would be too many of the former, so practically it might be better to excess the passengers anyway but then invite them to write in with their story and if it seems genuine make an ex-gratia offer (e.g. travel vouchers)

Q3. I would say no but the TOCs would have to balance the increase in fare against the loss of custom.

 

[yorksrob]

To continue the discussion on short-travelling, on evening trains from Paddington, a lot are "Off-peak only beyond X" for the longer inter-city journeys.

If passengers buy a ticket to Y (off-peak and further, but £40 cheaper) but only intend to travel to X, is this fraud or not?

One point to take into consideration is if enough people do this, should the TOC mount a regular blockade at X and excess all passengers exiting at X with a ticket to Y? (regardless of excuses, phone-calls from wives to meet them / sick children etc).

Or would the TOC then be justified in making all peak-time trains Anytime ticket only to the final destination to close the loophole, thereby inconveniencing the passengers who are legitimately travelling to Y and Z?

Any thoughts?

Q1 no
Q2 no
Q3 If the railway provider want's to stimulate traffic between y and z it should offer the cheap ticket. It will have to factor in the fact that some passengers won't go all the way. In effect, it will be selling the path between y and z rather than the direct journey.

 

[87 027]

The fundamental difficulty of course is that pricing policy is trying to achieve three not necessarily compatible aims:

(1) reflect the distance travelled
(2) choke demand for oversubscribed capacity
(3) stimulate demand for surplus capacity

Where all three of these apply to the same journey it gets complicated!

 

[Username]

You are wrong, he is now a crew manager!

Now THAT I can believe.

I've already stated that I believe the conditions of carriage need to be changed. Breaking of journey should be treated differently because it implies getting back on another train for which one hasn't got a ticket. This is different from not getting on a train for which one hasn't got a ticket.

Saying that this is the same thing is clearly nonsensical whether in the CoC or not.

No one said starting or terminating at intermediate stations was "the same thing" - only that it was covered by the same clause that relates to break of journey and is therefore normally the clause referred to.

Considering you have to get off and on at intermediate stations in order to have a break of journey it seems only logical that they cover the eventuallity of getting off and on at intermediate stations for starting or ending short too.

Breaking of journey may indeed imply getting back on another train, however how is the company to know that when someone gets off they do in fact intend to come back and resume?

 

[MikeWh]

Breaking of journey may indeed imply getting back on another train, however how is the company to know that when someone gets off they do in fact intend to come back and resume?

They don't. But if they subsequently do decide to continue their journey then the company can then excess them as they would not have a valid ticket. This really is the crux of the matter. The ticket allows travel on the booked train in the seats that have been reserved. The company does not have a problem with a passenger not using the ticket at all, but it does have a problem with it being used partially. This is the nonsensical part.

 

[yorkie]

It's not really enshrined if it's not permitted and therefore not a right now is it? There's little point referring to the NRCoC to support the position that a break of journey is an inalienable right when the NRCoC clearly states "these rights may not apply to some types of tickets for which a break of journey is prohibited"

Yes there is. We are talking about breaking a small-print condition that prevents you doing something that is normally allowed, and any reasonable person (IMO) would expect to be allowed. This is a far cry from the example of criminal damage!

And where is the unsociable criminality in damaging your own possession?

I didn't say there was any; there isn't.

I dropped a bowl in the kitchen the other day. It broke. It was mine. What crime did I commit?
I burned dinner too. That'll be arson then?
I replaced the blinds in the bedroom. I took the old ones down and had to break them into pieces in order to dispose of them. Malicious mischief?

Huh? What has this got to do with anything?

True. if you do anything like the above to someone elses' property then you might be in trouble but I'm pretty sure the police wouldn't be interested if you called them and confessed to peeing on your own sofa. But by all means try it. I'll pay for the call.

Where is it suggested otherwise?!

As for your references to item purchases above (multipack can, copyright infringement) these examples probably come closer to travel tickets in that they patently do come with conditions. They just don't come with as many, nor is there anyone liable to check up on the fact that you are adhering to them.

There is usually no-one checking that you don't adhere to the condition not to end short either. And, if there is a possibility that there will be someone to check, ways round that. So we agree they are similar and can be used as comparable examples?

But yes, I'd say I can do what I like with any items I legally own, on the proviso that I do not break any restrictions stated as conditions of their original sale to me, or break any other law.

Much the same way I can do what I like with my journey (within reason, e.g. use it or stay at home) on the same proviso that I do not break any restrictions applicable as conditional terms within the contract I agree to when I pay the TOC for the service they provide.

And if you give a multipack can to someone else, what do you think your punishment should be? Paying for a new can at the gold-plated price, a £20 penalty drink and providing your name & address to the shopkeeper?

Personally I never really saw where the argument of ownership of articles versus contractual services came into it anyway, but then I'm not the one who brought up cans of coke in a discussion about ticket validities the first place

The OP brought up the issue, and he has a good point ...

Exactly. If I buy a Mars Bar on special offer at Asda, I don't expect the manager to breathe down my neck making sure I eat every mouthful. If I try and eat a mouthful of another one I haven't paid for, that'd be theft, but once I've bought a Mars Bar at whatever price the retailer has agreed to sell it to me, I can eat as much or as little of it as I please.

Consuming less of an item that you paid for cannot ever be compared to causing criminal damage, which is what was being suggested earlier with the peeing on seats example!

No one said starting or terminating at intermediate stations was "the same thing" - only that it was covered by the same clause that relates to break of journey and is therefore normally the clause referred to.

Considering you have to get off and on at intermediate stations in order to have a break of journey it seems only logical that they cover the eventuallity of getting off and on at intermediate stations for starting or ending short too.

Breaking of journey may indeed imply getting back on another train, however how is the company to know that when someone gets off they do in fact intend to come back and resume?

This is clutching at straws.

The TOCs do suggest they are the 'same thing' and the way they word it is diabolical. Do you believe they could ever get the Crystal Mark for writing in Plain English? I believe they would never want to apply for it, because they do NOT want us to be able to understand their complicated terms, they want to be able to have different interpretations of their rules so they can claim they should be interpreted to their advantage, and they don't want to admit how unfair their rules are. They will never apply for the Crystal Mark, however if they are to continue to receive taxpayers money they should, IMO, be forced to write in Plain English. The DfT won't want that either, as they are not interested in the rights for passengers to be able to understand the T&Cs.

Do you find the ridiculously complicated nature of railway ticketing T&Cs acceptable?

MikeWh addresses your last paragraph well, so I won't comment on that.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes there is. We are talking about breaking a small-print condition that prevents you doing something that is normally allowed, and any reasonable person (IMO) would expect to be allowed. This is a far cry from the example of criminal damage!

So if I am right, you take a very hard line on staff who do not follow the rules, but expect that passengers should be able to break them when they want?