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

[Username]

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!

Except we're not talking about a small print condition. It's one of the main conditions relating to the use of this ticket type. It's stated clearly in the validity restrictions and is backed up by the NRCoC.
Unless of course you consider all restrictions to be small print conditions, but then that would only make your views consistent, not correct.

Yes it is a far cry from criminal damage, but since you raised the subject of criminal damage in your post #73, don't look to me to explain why it appears in this discussion.

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

You did, see again post #73

Huh? What has this got to do with anything?

Beats me, you brought this up.

Where is it suggested otherwise?!

Again, you, see your post #73

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?

For stopping short that all depends where you alight and whether barrier checks are in operation. For starting late, which this topic originally started off as, then there is the guard.
I agree that once you start talking about conditions which exist, e.g. copyright law, as opposed to conditions which do not, e.g. drinking only three out of four cans in a multipack then you can compare breaching conditions.

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?

If you give a multipack can to someone else then what condition have you broken? Why should you be punished?
If as a retailer you sold a multipack singly when it was marked as 'not for sale individually' then maybe trading standards would be interested. Who knows? I don't work for trading standards.

The OP brought up the issue, and he has a good point ...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, the OP brought up mars bars. You brought up cans of coke.
And no, he didn't have a good point and nor did you. You invented conditions which do not exist when purchasing food or drink and tried to compare breaking these fictitious restrictions which ones which do actually appear in the real world.
And thrice no, the peeing on seats example was raised to exemplify the pitifully irrelevant nature of attempting to compare abovesaid fictional "conditions" about mars bars and cans of coke with real conditions relating to contractual agreements.

This is clutching at straws.

Actually it's more like banging my head off a brick wall.

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.

From the advance ticket terms and conditions:

**Break of journey
You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.**

What exactly is diabolical about that wording? Seems crystal clear to me.

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

You haven't worked that out?

 

[yorkie]

So if I am right, you take a very hard line on staff who do not follow the rules,

Do I? Depends on the rule, I am sure you would agree?

but expect that passengers should be able to break them when they want?

Have I said that? Some rules are unfair, and some rules are unenforceable, but that doesn't mean I am saying people "should" break them. People are free to make their own opinions on whether or not they will break a rule that they deem unfair. What I have said is that I won't recommend it. Topics like this generally appear, not because someone is recommending such an action but because someone is asking whether they can do it. The OP asked if he can do it, no-one is saying that he is allowed to do it, and no-one is recommending that he does it. But there is a very interesting moral issue here as the choice is buying an AP ticket that may end up being used from a different station or travel by car...

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?

 

[Username]

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.

No the crux of the matter is that for the advance ticket the conditions prohibit joining or leaving services at intermediate stations unless for connectional purposes. There are many tickets which do permit joining or leaving at intermediate stations, whether it's to break a journey, finish a journey early or start a journey down the line. If a passenger wishes do to do then those are the appropriate tickets to use.

Of course the company do not care IF you use your ticket. There is no compulsion to do so. There are no conditions within the contact to say you must. But if you do use your ticket then as the carrier the company has the right to specify HOW you use it.

 

[Sapphire Blue]

So let me get this straight.
Next time I am travelling to Kings Cross from Leeds using an Advance ticket costing say £15 and my plans change so I want to leave the train at Stevenage, should I ask the guard to excess my ticket to travel short, or should I stay on the train and catch the next one back, which would be cheaper
Or just get off at Stevenage and say nothing, which would be cheaper still?

 

[Max]

Some people are seemingly forgetting that some of these rules are absolutely unenforceable. I agree that commencing a ticket late could be dealt with, but stopping short at a station without barriers? Do you expect the guard to chase the offender down the street demanding an excess fare, thus delaying the train? That's ludicrous. I even gather that barriers cannot recognise advance tickets and will just assume that BOJ is allowed on the ticket.

The starting late rule may be enforced on some TOCs (East Coast perhaps) but I doubt many guards would be that fussed. Ironically, a good example of this I can think of is actually on East Coast. Business people travelling from Brough-London on advance tickets often have the tickets booked from Hull by their company because the company assumes they are going to travel from there. However, many would prefer to travel from Brough because it's closer to where they live. It almost seems to have become an unwritten rule over the years that passengers on Hull tickets may board at Brough without being penalised. I have never witnessed anybody being charged for a new ticket and I travel on this service fairly regularly.

Perhaps if the railways are going to penalise people, they should clamp down on genuine fare evaders - tailgaters at barriers and the like, rather than trying to penalise fare paying passengers. I'm pretty sure they cost the railways more money in the long term.

 

[yorkie]

Except we're not talking about a small print condition. It's one of the main conditions relating to the use of this ticket type. It's stated clearly in the validity restrictions and is backed up by the NRCoC.
Unless of course you consider all restrictions to be small print conditions, but then that would only make your views consistent, not correct.

Most restrictions are 'small print' yes, because there are so many of them and they are so complex. You can't expect the average person to familiarise themselves with all the conditions.

Yes it is a far cry from criminal damage, but since you raised the subject of criminal damage in your post #73, don't look to me to explain why it appears in this discussion.

I didn't raise it. MCR247 gave the example.

You did, see again post #73

No I didn't. The behaviour described by MCR247 if taken place on a train could be considered criminal damage. Do you not agree?

Beats me, you brought this up.

No I didn't. MCR247 did.

Again, you, see your post #73

See my previous posts.

For stopping short that all depends where you alight and whether barrier checks are in operation.

Yes.

For starting late, which this topic originally started off as, then there is the guard.

There may be a guard, who may be able to determine you boarded late.

I agree that once you start talking about conditions which exist, e.g. copyright law, as opposed to conditions which do not, e.g. drinking only three out of four cans in a multipack then you can compare breaching conditions.

If you give a multipack can to someone else then what condition have you broken? Why should you be punished?
If as a retailer you sold a multipack singly when it was marked as 'not for sale individually' then maybe trading standards would be interested. Who knows? I don't work for trading standards.

Well, that's my point really, many would see it as a non-issue as it's an unfair, unenforceable condition that only really matters if someone is blatantly running a business doing it (e.g. if a retailer sold multipacks singly, the equivalent may be a travel agent selling AP tickets for longer journeys to people doing shorter journeys).

No, the OP brought up mars bars. You brought up cans of coke.
And no, he didn't have a good point and nor did you. You invented conditions which do not exist when purchasing food or drink and tried to compare breaking these fictitious restrictions which ones which do actually appear in the real world.

It is a good point, and whether you like it or not, and rightly or wrongly, many people will see getting off early as similar to not eating a whole chocolate bar or only consuming 3 out of 4 multipack cans, and the general public do feel that is wrong, the media do agree, and even the legendary GNER did cave in. You can talk about things being "fictitious" but I have provided the facts of what has actually happened in cases of people starting or finishing short. Where is your evidence?

And thrice no, the peeing on seats example was raised to exemplify the pitifully irrelevant nature of attempting to compare abovesaid fictional "conditions" about mars bars and cans of coke with real conditions relating to contractual agreements.

It doesn't exemplify that at all as it is not comparable, a comparison would be breaking a condition, not causing criminal damage.

Actually it's more like banging my head off a brick wall.

Just read what has actually happened and put this matter to rest then!

From the advance ticket terms and conditions:

**Break of journey
You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.**

What exactly is diabolical about that wording? Seems crystal clear to me.

Shall we ask the Plain English Campaign if they would give that the crystal mark then?

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.

Do they "make it clear"? I'm not so sure they do and I know many people who think that too. I don't think that putting it in some obscure small print really counts as making it clear.

But this isn't really about whether or not you are "allowed" to do it, we have established you are not. It's more a moral question, and radamfi's post is quite an interesting one.

I note you didn't answer my Poppleton taxi query, I guess you want to avoid answering that

You haven't worked that out?

I'll take that as a 'Yes' then. You must be the only person I've ever met who thinks that if so! I may disagree with some people (e.g. HHF) about interpretations at times, but we generally agree that the way the conditions and rules are worded is very poor.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Why did GNER not take Ms Spicer to court? As a part-time solicitor, she could have had a very good chance of fighting a good case.

GNER were worried about their public image in such a case (and rightly so). Why? Because the majority of people would agree that their actions are unfair because the small print rules are unfair. I believe the majority of people believe t is morally wrong to charge people in the circumstances described. GNER were not only worried about the negative publicity, but that they could lose the case. If they had lost the case, that could have had an interesting impact that could have seen the rules re-written. Just because a rule exists, that doesn't necessarily mean it is enforceable and it doesn't necessarily mean a court would agree that a breach of the rule means that such a sum (£188 in this case) could be charged.

In a way it's a shame 'Username' wasn't in charge of GNER's legal department at the time, as it would have been very interesting to see the outcome of such a case But GNER had the common sense to drop the matter and apologise to the customer.

 

[MikeWh]

No the crux of the matter is that for the advance ticket the conditions prohibit joining or leaving services at intermediate stations unless for connectional purposes. There are many tickets which do permit joining or leaving at intermediate stations, whether it's to break a journey, finish a journey early or start a journey down the line. If a passenger wishes do to do then those are the appropriate tickets to use.

Of course the company do not care IF you use your ticket. There is no compulsion to do so. There are no conditions within the contact to say you must. But if you do use your ticket then as the carrier the company has the right to specify HOW you use it.

Can you tell me what is the difference to the company between your seat being empty for the whole journey and it being empty for a small part of it? Please ignore the fact that this is what the conditions say, what I am interested in is whether you agree that the idea is silly.

Of course the company has the right to specify how you use a ticket, but it appears to most sane people that they have gone too far with this particular restriction. In view of your hostility towards yorkie I'm hesitating to take this a stage further, but in my mind insisting that you stay on the train for the whole journey is getting very close to saying that you can only leave your seat once per hour or part thereof of the journey.

Before I explain my next bit I am going to admit that in the case of the OP there is possibly some other factor at play because a suitable advance fare is not available from the next station along. However, I had a situation last October which I found exasperating. I needed to travel to Weymouth where I would be met by my wife at about 10pm. She had driven down with the kids and luggage for a week at a Haven Park while I stayed behind that afternoon and followed on the train. The nearest station to the park was Upwey, but not knowing the area I wasn't sure whether she would be able to find it that easily in the dark. The price of the advance single that I purchased was identical to either Upwey or Weymouth. The sales clerk that I spoke to on the phone at SWT was adamant that if I had a ticket to Weymouth that I would not be allowed to exit at Upwey.

So, do you agree that there is no logical justification for that rule in this instance? If you don't agree, you need to give a good reason which isn't just that it's the rules. The rules are mad IMO.

What I, and several others, are trying to say is that the conditions for advance tickets need to seperate break of journey from starting late and/or finishing early. It may be that there are cases where it will be necessary to prohibit it (possibly including the case of the OP) on the grounds that the fare payable for the shorter journey would be more expensive. But wherever the fare at the time of booking would be no more than the fare paid I believe that there is no good reason not to allow curtailment of the journey. If truth be known the TOCs would rapidly back down if someone suggested they should take them to court, because even they wouldn't want the negative publicity that the resultant front page headlines would provide.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

To help me understand this thread (and similar debates concerning Advance Fares), can anyone on here direct me towards the statutory requirements which apply to any TOC seeking to offer Advance Tickets, please?

I'd also be grateful if anyone could help me in finding the relevant similarities in law between the consumption of chocolate and travel with an Advance Ticket.

Thanks.

 

[yorkie]

To help me understand this thread (and similar debates concerning Advance Fares), can anyone on here direct me towards the statutory requirements which apply to any TOC seeking to offer Advance Tickets, please?

I'm not sure there are any. In the early days they could do pretty much whatever they wanted, but it is unclear what the position is now. I'd be interested to know too.

The concept of what we now call 'Advance singles' was pioneered by Virgin Trains and then called 'Virgin Value'. Until the Advance simplification (May 2008, IIRC) the system was a mess and each ticket had it's own conditions. Now, there appears to be a common set of conditions however I am unsure if TOCs have to adhere to that, I think it's just a case of the TOCs self-regulating themselves, however it is unclear if there any controls to ensure that TOCs adhere to the 'common conditions'. (e.g. it is claimed by ATOC that Super Off Peak is always more restrictive than Off Peak, however this sometimes isn't the case, and there appears to be no means to detect that, prevent it, or act on it). I reckon the TOCs are free to do what they want and just voluntarily agree on various things, which no-one from ATOC ever checks.

I'd also be grateful if anyone could help me in finding the relevant similarities in law between the consumption of chocolate and travel with an Advance Ticket.

Thanks.

The Mars bar example wasn't particularly great (although I think it did make a point, on a moral grounds, not legal grounds), which is why I changed it to a multipack cans example. I think it's more of a moral issue than a legal issue, but I believe there are some similarities.

In reality, the Coca Cola company can't stop you re-selling the individual cans of Coke on an ad-hoc basis, and I've seen cans marked 'not for sale individually' (or similar) being sold individually at e.g. summer fayres. But it would stop large retailers from carrying out the practice. They can't realistically do anything about what private individuals do, and I'd like to see them try to sue someone who I bought a 4 pack and sold 2 to a friend! Of course they wouldn't. But as long as they stop mainstream retailers doing it, they achieve their aims.

So why does ATOC have a rule saying you can't stop short? Because it stops travel agents doing it. It stops businesses doing it. It stops people suggesting/recommending it (e.g. on here, in newspapers, magazines, etc). Businesses are far less likely to be bothered about saving every penny. Ticket prices are designed to get business people paying many times higher (e.g. an SOS for £100) than leisure passengers (e.g. £10 Advance on the same train).

They must realise they can't actually stop private individuals from doing it. What's going to happen, a team of RPIs appear at York and insist that someone with an AP to Poppleton who has just missed the 2018 wait over an hour for the next one rather than get a lift and be home in 12 minutes? I don't think so.

But they aren't interested in that, in the same way that a supermarket doesn't care if I buy a "not for sale individually" multipack of 4 cans and a friend gives me half the cost for two. They are able to restrict businesses from doing it and they can achieve that aim.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I know the thread has moved on but just so I get my reply....

....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?....

They are non-transferable, only valid to be drunk at a set time on shop property and one after the other, the cans themselves remain property of the shop and can be retained after use

It's still a pathetic example.

....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.....

You would be attempting to avoid paying the cheapest fare for the journey being made, call it what you will, it amounts to the same thing.

....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'? ....

By the rules I suppose it has to be (unless the next train is more than 60 minutes away), however, this isn't the same thing is it, because this isn't an attempt by the passenger to deliberately avoid paying the fare, the railway has let the passenger down.

....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" ....

You are comparing a situation where an Anytime Return (valid for BoJ) is cheaper than an Off-Peak Return (Valid for BoJ) with an Advance Single (not valid for BoJ) being cheaper than an Anytime Single (valid for BoJ)?

It is about not having a valid ticket for your journey and trying to use a cheaper ticket that is not valid for that journey. It's not like you can't have one, is it? I mean, the £36 Prestatyn-Shipley Anytime Single does exist, as does the £30.50p Flint-Shipley Anytime Single.

In the Mexborough example, I would say you have paid the correct fare because you have a ticket that is valid for BoJ is valid along that route.

In this case, the ticket is not valid for BoJ, infact lets list the conditions you have broken.

• No Break of Journey allowed.
• Arrive at you origin station in good time
• Change of travel plans = admin fee plus difference in fare (Between £15 and £30) or a new ticket for the journey (Anytime Single £30.10)
• Changes to travel plans must be made before the departure time of the first booked train, after this time the ticket has no value. (you are traveling 13 minutes later and the train has already left the origin of the ticket).

If you were one of two people to make this journey with the advance fare and you had upgraded your ticket like an honest and morally sound person would, but the other chap, (who happens to sit facing you) hasn't, would you expect the guard to let him off or charge him extra?

If the guard let him off, what would your actions be? Complain to Customer Services about the situation and claim a refund for the extra you have paid? Moan 'like an old women' to anyone who will listen and everyone who won't? Harass the guard until he charges the other chap the 'correct fare'? Go to the media about it because 'it's so unfair'?

Equally, if he charged him the full single fare for the journey made, what would your actions be? Complain that both of you should have been let off the extra fare? Congratulate the guard on a job well done? Inform the Customer services department of the actions of the guard in a positive light? Complain that you were both done over by an unfair system that restricts travel beyond all reasonableness, even though you were happy to buy the ticket in the first place?

Or perhaps something else?

....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.....

One was a direct reversal of what you posted, so I presume that was also a standard 'get out' response?

....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 ....

I couldn't comment on who has or has not been prosecuted, I'm not privvy to the figures.

Maybe not everyone calls it fare evasion, but you are still avoiding paying for a valid ticket.

The TOCs are in a 'no win' situation if it goes far enough, they prosecute and suffer bad press/trial by media (particularly if they keep doing it), or accept that avoiding paying for a valid ticket is fine, set a bad precedence and lose revenue (possibly even lots of revenue).

Perhaps the real answer is to abolish advance fares and make everyone pay full fare, that would be much fairer.

You still haven't answered the question though, I'll even change it to make it more....'suitable'.

When is it acceptable to avoid paying for a valid ticket?

 

[route:oxford]

It's wrong, but I break the rules on a regular basis. Or do I?

I'm travelling from A-Z...

The first train runs from A-T
The second service runs from R-Z

I have a AP Ticket that covers my journey from A-T
I have an Anytime Ticket that covers my journey from R-Z

Both trains stop at stations R, S & T.

Every time, I disembark from the first train at station S, and wait for the second service.

Do I have a valid ticket that permits me to disembark at station S and switch to the service to take me to Z?

 

[yorksrob]

Now THAT I can believe.



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?

It is of no consequence to that company whether the passenger resumes his journey on another train as it has already been paid for that journey. It is the company running the connecting service which looses out in this case and it would be for them to charge for that leg of the journey if it see's fit.

If starting or stopping short is not the same thing as breaking of journey - as you yourself admit, then it should not be treated as such in the conditions.

 

[MikeWh]

It's wrong, but I break the rules on a regular basis. Or do I?

I'm travelling from A-Z...

The first train runs from A-T
The second service runs from R-Z

I have a AP Ticket that covers my journey from A-T
I have an Anytime Ticket that covers my journey from R-Z

Both trains stop at stations R, S & T.

Every time, I disembark from the first train at station S, and wait for the second service.

Do I have a valid ticket that permits me to disembark at station S and switch to the service to take me to Z?

No. Why do you do it anyway? Do the trains overtake each other between S and T? Is it same platform at S but not at T? Can't you buy a plus connections ticket to do the whole journey on advance, in which case you probably would be ok to change at S?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It's wrong, but I break the rules on a regular basis. Or do I?

I'm travelling from A-Z...

The first train runs from A-T
The second service runs from R-Z

I have a AP Ticket that covers my journey from A-T
I have an Anytime Ticket that covers my journey from R-Z

Both trains stop at stations R, S & T.

Every time, I disembark from the first train at station S, and wait for the second service.

Do I have a valid ticket that permits me to disembark at station S and switch to the service to take me to Z?

By the rules.....

You have valid tickets if you are booked a change of train at S and the booked train from S to T is the second train you mention.

If there is no booked change of train, it is at R, or it is not for the service you have joined, you do not have a valid ticket from A-R.

 

[87 027]

To continue a theme that has been raised, how far is the passenger justified (morally, not technically) in unilaterally breaking the terms of an Advance ticket in order to complete a journey when there is disruption to services?

A case in point: I was travelling one evening from London - Stockport on an Advance involving a change at Crewe (because all the direct advances had sold out for the time I wanted to travel). However a points failure occurred just outside Euston causing considerable delays and it became obvious I was going to miss my connection at Crewe, which happened to be the last train of the evening. However there was still a direct service to Stockport in the platform so I asked the train Manager if I could board that. He said no. However I boarded the train anyway a few carriages further up, figuring that (a) I had kept my side of the bargain by being at Euston in good time, (b) train I boarded was departing at around the time my booked train should have departed, and (c) I had saved the railways the price of a taxi to get me to my destination from Crewe (I do not care if VT would have recouped the cost from Network Rail which is what the Train Manager said).

In the event no-one came round checking tickets so that was the end of that particular episode and I got away with it. Was I right?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....In the event no-one came round checking tickets so that was the end of that particular episode and I got away with it. Was I right?

by the rules... No.

You are required to board your booked trains that you have agreed to travel on, (unless it is cancelled or delayed by more than 60 minutes), if you miss a booked connection as a result of a delay whilst travelling, the TOC has the responsibility to get you to your destination. If they are unable to do that, another TOC may help out as best it can, or provide overnight accomodation, if it is in a position to do so.

Morally... I don't think so.

You made the offer to save them money, but they refused, you then made the decision to board the train anyway, even though you knew your ticket wasn't valid. I seriously doubt your true motivation was to save them money, I think that was your justification for your actions.

 

[142094]

Here's an example of what you might have to pay if you don't travel according to the advance ticket rules (link)

I agree it can be frustrating, especially when you have to pay big bucks for a season ticket. Last year working in Leeds I had to have a season ticket York - Leeds, and even a return to Leeds is expensive. However you can buy advance tickets from York - Huddersfield for a fraction of the price.

 

[yorksrob]

To continue a theme that has been raised, how far is the passenger justified (morally, not technically) in unilaterally breaking the terms of an Advance ticket in order to complete a journey when there is disruption to services?

A case in point: I was travelling one evening from London - Stockport on an Advance involving a change at Crewe (because all the direct advances had sold out for the time I wanted to travel). However a points failure occurred just outside Euston causing considerable delays and it became obvious I was going to miss my connection at Crewe, which happened to be the last train of the evening. However there was still a direct service to Stockport in the platform so I asked the train Manager if I could board that. He said no. However I boarded the train anyway a few carriages further up, figuring that (a) I had kept my side of the bargain by being at Euston in good time, (b) train I boarded was departing at around the time my booked train should have departed, and (c) I had saved the railways the price of a taxi to get me to my destination from Crewe (I do not care if VT would have recouped the cost from Network Rail which is what the Train Manager said).

In the event no-one came round checking tickets so that was the end of that particular episode and I got away with it. Was I right?

I'd say you were absolutely morally in the right. Particularly as you turned up on time and it was the railway that was not going to get you to your destination. It's the train managers job to know about such disruption and to make allowances accordingly, so goodness knows what he was thinking.

If you'd had time, it might have been worth asking at the booking office as they can sometimes amend the ticket accordingly.

 

[Mojo]

Just seen this on Yahoo news: http://uk.travel.yahoo.com/p-promo-3359792

I don't know if they were on Megatrain or some other kind of Advance ticket offer.

 

[87 027]

I seriously doubt your true motivation was to save them money, I think that was your justification for your actions.

Yes, I don't deny that my primary motive was personal convenience, but it seemed such an obvious win-win solution in the particular circumstances! If my delayed train was a direct service I would have adhered to the conditions of issue. It was only because I would have missed the last connection of the day that I acted as I did. I think that makes a difference and a passenger can reasonably expect discretion to be shown...

 

[Username]

Personally I don't expect passengers to familiarise themselves with all conditions of all tickets. Taken on the whole and considering the sheer number of available ticket types that would be a headache and completely unnecessary.
However it is not too much to expect a passenger to familiarise themselves with the restrictions applicable to the one ticket they plan to use, preferably before buying it. Asking "If I buy this ticket, can I use it to do this?" should not be beyond the grasp of most people. Nor should "well what's the best ticket?" if the first response is "Sorry, no"

However, I'm not really sure on the relevance of the above when you consider the topic has devolved into encouragement to misuse tickets even when the conditions are known.

Half eaten mars bars and cans of coke do not compare (morally or legally) to train journeys no matter how people may wish to twist it to fit. Saying it's the same thing because they are both unfinished is obtuse. I'd like to think Alison Spicer would have found a rather more solid legal argument than the "Mars Bar Defence" had her case gone to court. Even the "Chewbacca Defense" would have been preferable.
For those wish to compare incomplete journeys to uneaten food then at least pick an example which carries repercussions for not consuming that last bite.
Such as: http://www.allmediascotland.com/press_news/25791/steak-challenge-too-tempting-for-patterson
At least then you'd have some basis for comparison.


For those who claim moral justification as their compass, well moral justification can be claimed for just about anything. Depending on your morals of course.

In fact I can probably justify (to myself) never having to buy another ticket ever again.
1. the service will run whether I am on board or not. Since it's going there anyway there's no harm in me travelling for free.
2. If I had to buy I ticket I wouldn't travel by train so the company suffers no loss by me not buying one.
3. The guards never check tickets anyway so what's the point in having one?
4. If a guard does come through asking for "Tickets from . . ", well 'technically' I don't have a ticket so I don't need to speak up.
5. The NRCoC applies to ticket holders. If I don't have a ticket then the bit in the NRCoC about "requirement to hold a ticket" can't apply to me. And if that's not how it works then it's their fault for not making it clearer.
6. If I get caught - well there are no penalty fares up here, all they do is take a name and address which they can't verify anyway. That's their fault if it's unenforceable.
7. I'm only going to the next station anyway so I'll 'let' the guard throw me off and think he's won.

Of course, none of these justifications may seem valid to you, but to me they're pretty sound and that's what matters right?? Naturally you lot will have to keep buying your tickets - I don't want the company to go bust and the trains to stop running, But you all probably get paid more than me so that's fine. **

Self serving rationalisations and incompatible comparisons apart, the issue has degenerated into a circular argument between those who think it is fair to misuse a ticket and those who do not. I doubt either side will be convinced by the other.

The terms and conditions for advance tickets have been laid out. They have been dissected on this thread and no one can be in any doubt having read this, that the conditions prohibit joining or leaving at intermediate stations except for connectional reasons. Yet still people promote it on the basis that they either do not like, do not understand or cannot find the condition.

May as well point out that there are just as many people who don't see a problem in using a completely different service other than the one stated on their advance ticket. It doesn't matter if you or I understand the restriction, if they don't are they exempt too?
Are those who dislike or fail to appreciate peak time restrictions to be exempt from them also?
Is it not silly that off-peak tickets are valid during peak time if they are cross-border whilst those in-country are not? Exemption granted?

After all, the general consensus appears to be "it shouldn't apply to me if I think it's silly".

Where do you draw the line for which terms to break and which to adhere to?

Enforcement of contractual agreements is not always a simple task. That does not mean it is correct to break the terms of an agreement even if it is easy to do so. When it happens and people are challenged I imagine some people accept it and pay up. You will see them as fools or as people who take responsibility for their actions depending on your point of view.

Yes some will run to the press to express their outrage at the audacity of the TOC wishing to hold them to the terms they agreed to in the first place.
Yes the TOC will most likely back down as it is a no-win situation for them. They are the bureaucrats, the fat cats, the Goliath persecuting David. Even if they won in the courts they would lose in the press.



**Note: despite some of the above content I am in no way advocating fare evasion. The examples were included merely to demonstrate the simple fact that just because I can claim to feel 'justified' does not automatically make me 'morally right' in the eyes of others

 

[Clip]

Just seen this on Yahoo news: http://uk.travel.yahoo.com/p-promo-3359792

I don't know if they were on Megatrain or some other kind of Advance ticket offer.

Yeh was just reading that in the paper.. Bit of a big sting in the tail for them but a 6 pound ticket is disgustingly cheap from London to Southampton so must have been a megatrain fare

 

[MikeWh]

@Username: Do you agree that where the fare for the shorter journey is either the same or less the restriction is unfair? Simple answer, yes or no.

 

[General Zod]

A couple from Southampton got a £114 for stopping "short" on an advance.
See another thread.

 

[General Zod]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ting-off-the-train-before-their-final-stop.do

Sad story but the average rail user doesn't have time to read the small print.

 

[Clip]

A couple from Southampton got a £114 for stopping "short" on an advance.
See another thread.

see 2 posts above

 

[General Zod]

Oopps sorry. Perhaps admin can delete my post.

 

[djh1986]

Absolutely absurd, they've not set out to cheat the system or rob revenue from the railways.

It's things like this that put people off the railways and into their cars.

 

[142094]

see 2 posts above

See two posts above that one as well!

 

[Greenback]

Absolutely absurd, they've not set out to cheat the system or rob revenue from the railways.

It's things like this that put people off the railways and into their cars.

Just of interest, how do you know that they didn't deliberately choose a very cheap Megatrain fare that wasn't available to where they wanted to go, with the intention of simply getting off at Eastleigh?