Prosecuted for travelling using any day return T&Cs

[BongoStar]

Discounts to which you have no entitlement, such as Veterans Railcard are false equivalents.

It's not a false equivalence because I am not entitled to a discount on network railcard before 10am just as I am not entitled to Veterans discount. It's not just about possession the railcard, but goes a step ahead on whether the possession entitles me to apply the discount.

One has to establish entitlement before going to see whether it was used as required.

Like I said, we will have to disagree on this.

 

[yorkie]

It's not a false equivalence because I am not entitled to a discount on network railcard before 10am just as I am not entitled to Veterans discount.

It is a false equivalence because a time restriction is not the same as entitlement to hold a particular Railcard.

It's not just about possession the railcard, but goes a step ahead on whether the possession entitles me to apply the discount.

But that doesn't mean it is the same thing.

 

[slicedbread]

A network card discount entitlement does not exist before 10am.

This is due network railcard conditions of use restricting the times of use to after 10am mon-fri (4.2) But crucially and uniquely among railcards it also says

4.7. You will be asked to pay the difference between the price of your discounted ticket and the full price applicable fare (or the Penalty Fare if travelling in the Penalty Fares area) if you travel:...4.7.3. on a route to which a higher fare applies or at a time when reduced fares do not apply.

It doesn't say you may be asked to pay the difference or we may prosecute you but "you will be asked".

It seems clear that for a network card the same section that lists the time restriction (section 4) also lists the consequence, which is an excess or penalty fare and not anything else.

Anyway I'm interested in what the OP decides or has decided to do as they are only one with skin in the game.

 

[AlterEgo]

No different from using a railcard that you don't have/can never use. if the underlying entitlement to discount is ignored, then in theory, I could use a veterans card discount (which i dont have and am not entitled to either) and demand to pay excess when caught.

No you couldn’t. Under which section of the NRCoT would you be claiming that? No railcard means a wholly new ticket or Penalty Fare or report for prosecution!

 

[soil]

What other intention would the OP have to buy an Anytime ticket, if not to travel before 10am?

The default ticket and price it presents when 10:15 is selected is the offpeak day return for £17. OP has to make a conscious choice to select Anytime and pay 90p more.

It is clear OPs intention was not to travel after 10am but rather before.

It clearly says "any off-peak train" vs. "travel any time of day".

And then:



A rational consumer might say "hmm, £17 for any off-peak train" or "£17.90 for any train", £17.90 is the more sensible choice.

They don't attempt to define what is meant by "off-peak", and it is a clear upsell - pay 90p extra and catch any train you like.

It's hard to find the rules but if you click on several links it is possible to learn that the restriction is 'before 9am'. However this is not made obvious.

If you click on the rules of the anytime day return it explicitly mentions that railcard discounts are available and that there are NO TIME RESTRICTIONS.

Crosscountry would not stand a chance of winning this in court. Absurd to even defend this.

Their agent 'trainline' with its ripoff fees and its lack of information is not presenting the relevant terms of the contract. Absurd to even defend them.

 

[some bloke]

@menmak08 , you can raise this with traditional media, on social media, with your MP and/or with Transport Focus.

National Rail Condition of Travel 2.3 is also relevant:

How could a seller argue that they don't have to mention all the key restrictions in the steps just before purchase, including restrictions which could lead to prosecution if they are ignored?

They would need to show that Condition of Travel 2.3 unambiguously supports their position.

"2.3 When purchasing your Ticket, we will make available information on specific restrictions that apply to your Ticket (for instance the train services on which you can use your Ticket..."

Again, all that the consumer needs is that the term is capable of meaning what the consumer claims.

In what sense is it true that Trainline has fulfilled the requirement to

"make available information on specific restrictions that apply to...the train services [plural] on which you can use your Ticket"?

 

[methecooldude]

@menmak08 , you can raise this with traditional media, on social media, with your MP and/or with Transport Focus.

National Rail Condition of Travel 2.3 is also relevant:

I've made this argument before and I'll make it again. The NRCoT gives a definition to "Ticket" (which is why every instance is capitalised)

"Ticket" means any physical or electronic document or record which
entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail
Network between the stations or within the zones indicated by
one or more of the Train Companies. An electronic document
or record may consist of (but not be limited to):
a Smartcard (including an Oyster or ITSO card);
a payment card or identity card;
a mobile telephone or tablet device;
other mobile electronic device; or
a database, in conjunction with an authorised Contactless Bank
Card bearing the symbol described in the notices and
publications of the Train Company as being valid for travel on
their services.

(Page 32 NRCoT)(There is more to the definition, but is irrelevant to this)

This would be referring to the Anytime ticket itself, regardless of any discount. The image that soil posted at the bottom of #65 does show all the information about the Ticket validity, therefore Trainline (for all it's faults) has covered the requirements of 2.3

Knowing this, we then have to look at 8.2 which states

The Railcard may have additional restrictions which will apply to any Tickets you buy when using it.

Note the phase "any Tickets", not just off-peak, not just Advance, ANY Ticket.
This wording would also mean that the Ticket and the railcard discount are treated as separate entities when it comes to the NRCoT rules. Therefore, my opinion, not a legal one at that, I that any reference to "time restricted Tickets" (note again, the capital T) in the NRCoT is in relation to the ticket type itself and NOT any form of railcard discount entitlement. Therefore, a railcard discounted Anytime is not, for the purpose of the NRCoT a "Time restricted Ticket" and also Trainline is not required (although they *should*, but that's a different argument) to show the railcard restriction at the point of purchase

 

[some bloke]

This would be referring to the Anytime ticket itself, regardless of any discount.

Under consumer law, if there is more than one possible meaning to a term, the interpretation favourable to the consumer prevails.

There is a question as to how prominent important terms are.

A perception by the public and politicians of the need to change practice because of unfairness can also prevail.

 

[methecooldude]

Under consumer law, if there is more than one possible meaning to a term, the interpretation favourable to the consumer prevails.

There is a question as to how prominent important terms are.

A perception by the public and politicians of the need to change practice because of unfairness can also prevail.

There is no other meaning in the NRCoT though, even "Railcard" gets a definition which refers to "Ticket", keeping the 2 separate

"Railcard" is a card (which may in some circumstances be stored on an electronic device) that allows Ticket(s) to be bought at a discounted fare;

 

[some bloke]

There is no other meaning in the NRCoT though, even "Railcard" gets a definition which refers to "Ticket", keeping the 2 separate

I'm referring, like the law, to the meaning of the "term" as in "terms and conditions", rather than to a definition.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2024 ==

Consumer Rights Act 2015

An Act to amend the law relating to the rights of consumers and protection of their interests; to make provision about investigatory powers for enforcing the regulation of traders; to make provision about private actions in competition law and the Competition Appeal Tribunal; and for connected...

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[AdamWW]

Anyway I'm interested in what the OP decides or has decided to do as they are only one with skin in the game.

I'd be interested in the outcome too but I wouldn't blame the OP for not wanting to return to this thread.

It's supposed to be about helping the OP.

@AlterEgo has given a definitive explanation of how the railway interprets the NRCoT and that prosecution is not permitted.

Their qualifications to do so have been confirmed by a member of forum staff, as well as the fact that in this case they are correct.

And yet other posters are continuing to present opposing arguments as to why the NRCoT should be interpreted in a more subtle way leading to a different result, in some cases presenting their views as fact, or - I think - arguing that the NRCoT don't permit the railway to adequately address fare evasion in this case and therefore it should be allowed to override them.

 

[some bloke]

@menmak08 , this report came after the letter was sent to you:

Northern agrees to scrap railcard fare prosecutions

The rail operator says it is working with the government to simplify it price structure.

www.bbc.co.uk