5 penalty fares in 2 weeks... please help!!

[LexyBoy]

2) The allegation that you were off route, although false, even if it were true could not result in a penalty fare as being off route is not a valid reason for issuing a penalty fare.

Doesn't 'off route' only apply when travelling on a valid route but with a ticket restricted to (an) other route(s)? Thus if not travelling on a route valid between the origin and destination of the ticket, the passenger would be 'ticketless'.

 

[jon0844]

I'm curious - does 5 penalty fares for the same thing in a very short space of time not put the OP in serious danger of being MG11'd and reported for prosecution?

By the sound of it, I'd be wanting to go down that route to have a day in court and have a judge slating the TOC for letting it get there when all the supporting evidence (namely the sites selling 'valid' tickets) would make these penalty fares totally illegal.

But that's very easy to say when it's not you of course, but I'd love for someone to take these things to court and fight back. TOCs may normally win in court (but that's hopefully because they're usually going after fare evaders), but I bet they wouldn't here. In fact, I'd bet on the fact that they'd not let it go to court at all.

The question is, is that an easier way to deal with the situation than having to appeal five individual penalty fares, with the chance of getting more.

All I would say though is that now the OP is aware that it might NOT be a valid route, it is probably a good idea not to continue travelling that way.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

The National Rail Enquiries Journey Planner often gives misleading information, either related to routeings or ticket validities.

It recently tried to tell me that the outward portion of an off-peak ticket was valid to arrive at station X at about 0730, when the actual restriction shown in the fares manual, ticket machines etc said "Not valid on any train due to arrive at X before 0930". Clearly it wasn't valid, but there was an error. The internal Fujitsu Journey Planner said it was valid as well, whereas the NXEC booking engine said it was valid on some trains but not on others, even though they all arrived at X before 0930!

I have also had the NRES Journey Planner tell me that a route which clearly is NOT valid as per the routeing guide (as in this case) was valid, and a route which I interpreted to actually BE valid was not.

You get differences between the sites as well. NRES says some routes are and fare options are valid, whereas the NXEC booking engine, primed with the same data, says it is not valid.

No wonder folk get confused and problems / arguments occur.

 

[jon0844]

If you are given this information by sites that are supposed to be correct, then any TOC wanting to take enforcement action should do so against the site/seller of the invalid ticket - NOT the passenger.

That would soon shake things up and ATOC would then have no choice but to sort this out. It's not for you or me to have to worry about such things. Besides making it hard for some people to get hold of the various T&Cs they're supposed to be aware of, there are then different revisions and other factors to consider.

Many things are common sense, thankfully, but there's plenty of stuff that isn't.

 

[Ferret]

If you are given this information by sites that are supposed to be correct, then any TOC wanting to take enforcement action should do so against the site/seller of the invalid ticket - NOT the passenger.

Of course, that can happen - TIRs and all that...

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Back when clerks had only a CRS machine, APTIS, the routeing guide, NFM and a National Timetable, this sort of thing would not happen as often. The journey planner, infact the whole internet, is only as good as the programmer, and technology has made us all lazy.

 

[b0b]

The journey planner, infact the whole internet, is only as good as the programmer, and technology has made us all lazy.

The problem, as I've found out, is that the spec has numerous inconsistencies and ambiguities, thus forcing judgement calls.

However it seems a little odd that it can't get Chafford Hundred - Southend Stations correct, since they share the routeing point. That's one of the better defined cases, excepting the "3 mile debate"

 

[W-on-Sea]

I would EXPECT Chafford Hundred to Southend tickets to be valid via either Upminster (and thence Basildon) or Grays

Mileages: Chafford Hundred to Grays 2.5 miles, Grays to Southend Central 21.75 miles = total 24.25 miles

Chafford Hundred to Upminster 5 miles, Upminster to Southend Central via Basildon 20.5 miles = 25.5 miles

so OK - seems they are.

but Chafford Hundred to Upminster 5 miles, Upminster to Romford 3.5 miles, Romford to Southend Victoria 29.0 miles = 37.5 miles

More broadly , the software behind the ticketing websites clearly leaves a lot to be desired. Buying a return (out Friday evening, back Sunday) from London Terminals to Borough Green and Wrotham last week, each website I tried came up with a different option: NRES suggested a cheaper ticket (Southeastern Weekender) that can't be bought online (I found out later), only from Southeastern ticket offices, and the return offered on the c2c site was (for some inexplicable reason) cheaper than that offered for exactly the same trains on the Southeastern site....

Although I am tempted to say: partly the ticketing software is at fault; but so is the complexity of the ticketing system.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

So, it seems that you aren't supposed to be allowed to go that way - but national rail enquries say you can. Also both C2C and NXEA websites say that you can - I would use printouts from those to show it should be allowed.

But the East Coast booking engine (which I generally find is more accurate) says you cannot!

 

[jon0844]

That's good to know, but unless all the others are updated (or shut down) then the poor passenger is buggered, for want of a better word.

 

[talltim]

I get the impression that none of these source of info is definative, so how do you decide which it 'right' and which 'wrong'?

 

[sheff1]

I get the impression that none of these source of info is definative, so how do you decide which it 'right' and which 'wrong'?

I decide which one is most advantageous to me as a customer and use that.
Someone (sorry I forget who) has consistently posted on here that, in the case of ambiguity regarding 'terms/conditions', consumer law supports this approach.

 

[b0b]

I get the impression that none of these source of info is definative, so how do you decide which it 'right' and which 'wrong'?

you look in the fares manual - that's definitive.

 

[tony_mac]

But the East Coast booking engine (which I generally find is more accurate) says you cannot!

I didn't check that, but as NXEA and C2C provide the trains, I don't think they can realistically argue with their own websites.

Nationalrail claims that it is the definitive source.....

About National Rail Enquiries

National Rail Enquiries (NRE) is the definitive source of information for all passenger rail services on the National Rail network in England, Wales and Scotland.

 

[yorkie]

Doesn't 'off route' only apply when travelling on a valid route but with a ticket restricted to (an) other route(s)? Thus if not travelling on a route valid between the origin and destination of the ticket, the passenger would be 'ticketless'.

They are not "ticketless", at the worst they are "overdistance" (travelling beyond validity). If reason is given as no ticket held then I am fairly confident that the Penalty Fare appeal should be successful on those grounds (although I am not an expert in that respect).

Allegedly Off Route is clearly most appropriate as there is a dispute regarding the routeing, some sources state this is a valid route, and one of those sources are specified in the contract as being definitive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm curious - does 5 penalty fares for the same thing in a very short space of time not put the OP in serious danger of being MG11'd and reported for prosecution?

I'd love this case to go to court. Providing the OP got a lawyer who is experienced in railway ticketing matters, I would expect NXEA to be humiliated! (IANAL)

My advice to the OP would be to seek legal advice first and, if you feel inclined to go for it, I would love to see such a case go all the way to the courts.

By the sound of it, I'd be wanting to go down that route to have a day in court and have a judge slating the TOC for letting it get there when all the supporting evidence (namely the sites selling 'valid' tickets) would make these penalty fares totally illegal.

But that's very easy to say when it's not you of course, but I'd love for someone to take these things to court and fight back. TOCs may normally win in court (but that's hopefully because they're usually going after fare evaders), but I bet they wouldn't here. In fact, I'd bet on the fact that they'd not let it go to court at all..

I agree completely. NXEA would surely back down.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You get differences between the sites as well. NRES says some routes are and fare options are valid, whereas the NXEC booking engine, primed with the same data, says it is not valid.

No wonder folk get confused and problems / arguments occur.

Agreed.

One of the biggest reasons for this is the complexity of the Routeing Guide. All sites (and us!) have to interpret it. Not everyone agrees on some interpretations. The easements are a nightmare. As for the concept of a "negative easement" that is an oxymoron and the mere idea of it should be banned.

They should be forced to get a Crystal Mark (as awarded by the Plain English campaign).

Also legal aid should be available to anyone who is in court in a dispute over interpretations of the NCoC/Routeing Guide/T&Cs.

Of course the DfT are happy for the status quo to continue as it is assumed that customers won't dare fight the TOCs in court. Occasionally they do, but very rarely.

 

[jon0844]

It is nearly impossible to argue anything in court as I am convinced that if anyone does intend to fight, the other party will back down. Goodwill gestures are used by every business to avoid further action, and most will be gladly accepted because people have probably already had enough hassle and just want the bother to end.

In America, I'm sure that you'd find that if there were discussions like this, someone would file a class action suit. I'm not sure legal action is always the answer, but loads of things go untested here, which allows rules to be incorrectly applied and enforced over and over again.

 

[73101]

I may have missed something ....and have not read all the replies.

BUT if I was handed a penalty fare, I would be asking questions at the time.

I would want to know why exactly ... and what I should do to avoid another.

I would make sure it didn't happen again - and it certainly wouldn't happen 5 times.

Sometimes it pays to look logically at the original post.

I think you guys are being suckered

 

[jon0844]

Perhaps. But, whatever the reality - the subsequent investigation and inconsistencies from one website to another, DOES highlight yet another problem.

 

[yorkie]

I think you guys are being suckered

By your own admission you do not appear to understand or be familiar with the content of this topic, so any such conclusion you draw is not going to attract much attention from me, sorry.

I have no idea what you even mean by that anyway.

I stand by my view that:
1) It is not a permitted route in the Routeing Guide;
2) The customer's contract says it is a permitted route if the journey planner says it is a permitted route;
3) The journey planner does say it is a permitted route;
4) The OP should appeal all Penalty Fares, and depending on what reason was given for the PF, this may be very easy or it may be less easy. It is possible the PFs are null and void depending on the exact reason given (more info required; a scan of one of the PFs would be useful);
5) The conflicting information is an internal railway matter and not the customer's problem;
6) Consumer law says that were the terms are conflicting, the interpretation that is must favourable to the customer should prevail.

 

[jon0844]

6) Consumer law says that were the terms are conflicting, the interpretation that is must favourable to the customer should prevail.

Yes, and if the OP doesn't fancy having to spend ages justifying every appeal - getting some advice on this point is more than likely going to have the person(s) looking at the appeal agree to cancel it immediately. I doubt they'd even dare take it any further.

The law is nearly always on the side of the smaller party, which is the passenger/customer.

As you say, it's an internal matter and the OP should now accept that he cannot continue to travel this way, having been made aware that it isn't a valid route, and accept that this error should now be fixed. If anything, he should be thanked for bringing this error to the attention of those that can do something about it!

 

[John @ home]

the OP should now accept that he cannot continue to travel this way, having been made aware that it isn't a valid route, and accept that this error should now be fixed.

The validity may be changed for future tickets, but I don't agree that the OP should now accept that he cannot continue to travel this way with his current ticket. At the time of purchase, it seems the "definitive source", the National Rail site, stated the route was valid. TOCs are not allowed to change the contract to the detriment of the passenger after the point of sale.

 

[Ferret]

The validity may be changed for future tickets, but I don't agree that the OP should now accept that he cannot continue to travel this way with his current ticket. At the time of purchase, it seems the "definitive source", the National Rail site, stated the route was valid. TOCs are not allowed to change the contract to the detriment of the passenger after the point of sale.

They are allowed to change the terms for subsequent contracts once the performance of the existing contract is complete though.

 

[Olleh]

TOCs are not allowed to change the contract to the detriment of the passenger after the point of sale.

Where can I find a copy of the contract?!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Where can I find a copy of the contract?!

It's your ticket, the routing guide, fares manual and the national conditions of carriage.

 

[John @ home]

Where can I find a copy of the contract?!

Start by reading the Railway Bye-laws, the National Rail Conditions of Carriage and all 1500-odd pages of the National Routeing Guide.

Then you'll need to read the terms and conditions of the ticket type you intend to travel with, usually Advance, Anytime or Anytime Day, Off-Peak or Super Off-Peak, Off-Peak Day or Super Off-Peak Day, Season, Rover or Ranger. If you're using a ticket advertised as a special offer, you'll need the terms and conditions of the offer.

If you're using a Railcard, then add the terms and conditions of the particular railcard.

There are be additional documents which may form part of the contract if you travel in Scotland, Wales, the London area or the area of an Integrated Transport Authority. Sometimes local authorities have special tickets with their own terms and consitions which form part of the contract.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Maybe the National Conditions of Carriage have changed since I downloaded them, but do they not still say....

13. The route you are entitled to take

(a) You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold in:

(i) a through train;

(ii) trains which take the shortest route which can be used by scheduled
passenger services; or

(iii) trains which take the routes shown in the National Routeing Guide
(details as to how you can obtain this information will be available
when you buy your ticket).

(b) If you are using a Zonal Ticket you may travel in trains which take any route within
the zone or zones shown on the ticket.

(c) Together, the routes referred to in (a) (ii), (a) (iii) and (b) above are the
“permitted routes”.

(d) The use of some tickets may be restricted to trains which take:

(i) routes passing through, or avoiding, particular locations; or

(ii) the most direct route.

These restrictions will be shown on the ticket.

(e) If you make your journey by a route other than those referred to in (a) and (b)
above, 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 travel by that route.

(f) For the purposes of this Condition, a “through train” is one which may be
used by a passenger to make their entire journey without changing trains.

If the journey planners are wrong, does it change the contract?

If the NCoC hasn't changed then I'd say no. The contract is that the ticket is valid by the the shortest route, on direct trains and routes as shown in the Routeing Guide, not on any journey planner you may happen to look at.

The passenger can only go by the information they are given and I wouldn't be suprised if there is, somewhere on these sites, a disclaimer or 'get-out' clause. In any case the website is in the wrong here, but getting them to change it is a bigger problem.

 

[jon0844]

I don't agree that the OP should now accept that he cannot continue to travel this way with his current ticket.

If it's a season ticket then fair enough, but you'd weaken your case if you had investigated the proper answer, found it out, then ignored it and bought new tickets because what you found out doesn't support your case.

Of course, I'm not saying that any of this would ever go to court (in fact, I'm certain it wouldn't) but imagine if you did, and this thread (or any other) was produced by the other party?

 

[John @ home]

If it's a season ticket then fair enough, but you'd weaken your case if you had investigated the proper answer, found it out, then ignored it and bought new tickets because what you found out doesn't support your case.

The OP claims to be using a season ticket.

But my ticket costs almost £3,000!! it's a season ticket

But we still have the difficulty that the most expensive Chafford Hundred - Southend Stations ticket we can find is the Standard 12-month season at £1,728. No First Class fares are advertised. The OP has chosen not to respond to yorkie's request in post #22 to clarify which ticket he actually holds.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Plus a route no longer than 3 miles further than the shortest route.

Surely this point cannot be enforced because in the current NR timetable, there are no mileages shown in any tables.

How does one calculate the distances involved?

I think it probably can be enforced because Network Rail admit that the omission is an error and the mileages appear in both the previous and the next timetable.

I suggest that we calculate according to the distances in the next timetable, adjusting where appropriate for stations in a different location, such as Drumgelloch.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the journey planners are wrong, does it change the contract?

In this instance, any attempt by a train company to claim that the National Routeing Guide over-rules the National Rail journey planner is likely to be prejudiced by their trade association's assertion that the National Rail Enquiries journey planner is the "definitive source".

Despite the statement by the Rail Regulator in 1996 that

"Reasonable routes" have never before been precisely defined on the railway. With passenger services now being provided by many different train operators there was a concern that without a clear definition, passengers' rights to use the network flexibly could be eroded, either by accident or design.

I have said that I would not approve any guide which restricted reasonable routes any further than those currently in use. That has been the overriding principle under which the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) has produced the Guide. I remain firmly committed to that principle.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5492

the trade association continues to use the phrase reasonable route, advertising that All tickets are valid via any reasonable route unless specifically stated on the ticket. There can be very little doubt that a route suggested by the National Rail Enquiries journey planner is a reasonable route. That would provide additional evidence pointing to the current validity via Wickford of a Chafford Hundred - Southend Stations route Any Permitted ticket.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The problem with that is that ATOC is not part of the contract between passenger and the TOC(s), even if it did set up the rules.

 

[John @ home]

The problem with that is that ATOC is not part of the contract between passenger and the TOC(s), even if it did set up the rules.

I agree with jonmorris0844 that the likelihood of this issue reaching Court is low. But if it did, I suspect that the written opinions of the trade association which set up the rules and the Regulator who authorised them would be likely to be admitted as relevant evidence.