• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

TfL Overcharge thousands travelling between Reading and Zone 1 using Contactless PAYG

Status
Not open for further replies.

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
8,582
Location
Crayford

Briefly, the PAYG fares between Reading and zone 1 Underground stations were incorrectly entered in the system last March and people have been overcharged 30p (peak) or 40p (off-peak) each way. Those who hit the weekly cap will not have been affected, but anyone doing Reading to Paddington and two zone 1 tube/EL journeys is very likely to have been overcharged. This is because the increase in day travelcard prices (and caps) to stop TfL withdrawing from the agreement mean that the daily caps only come into effect if you make extra journeys above the return and two tube scenario. GWR have confirmed that the fares are wrong (they set them) and TfL have said they will look at anyone claiming to have been overcharged. The error won't be corrected until this March. Whilst I accept that TfL have had a nightmare since last September (and they didn't find out about this until after the attack took place) I'm disappointed that they don't appear to be promising to refund everyone.

Back in August 2024, forum user ReadingCommuter asked a simple question: Why am I being charged 30p more to get from Reading to a zone 1 tube station, when the constituent parts (Reading to Paddington + Zone 1 tube) are cheaper? This sparked an investigation which has taken nearly 6 months to resolve, thanks mainly to the cyber security incident.


I checked that Reading was the only station affected by this issue and ran an analysis of all fares from Reading. Everything seemed logical except for the through fare to zone 1. In addition to the 30p difference at peak times, there was also a 40p difference off-peak. This had the effect that it was cheaper to travel beyond zone 1 off-peak than to finish in zone 1.


Armed with the full story I contacted GWR (who set the fares from Reading) customer services and raised the query. They took a while to work out what was going on, but in October they responded as follows:


I’m sorry that there appears to be an error in the pricing for CPAY journeys on this route. I am grateful that you’ve brought this matter to our attention and can confirm that your comments have been passed to our Fares team to investigate. They’ve advised that the fare data we supplied to TfL for Reading to Zone U1 was £31.80 (peak) and £15.30 (off peak); however, this isn’t what’s shown on TfL’s website. Our Fares team have raised this matter with TfL directly and asked them to investigate and resolve the matter.

Sadly, by the time GWR contacted TfL, TfL were knee-deep in the cyber security incident which naturally was taking up every resource available. Separately I make an FOI request to TfL asking how many journeys were being charged the (incorrect) fares. This was also held up by the cyber security incident and the response finally arrived at the end of January, just as my time was fully occupied by the introduction of Project Oval Phase 1b. I asked TfL about the issue and a spokesperson responded:


It came to our attention that some pay as you go journeys between Reading to Zone 1 may have been slightly overcharged due to the incorrect data being included in our fares system. Unfortunately, we can only make changes to the fares system at pre-determined points in the year, and due to the recent cyber security incident, we have not been able to correct these to date. Any customers who reached the daily or weekly cap, or not travelling using pay as you go with contactless will not be impacted by this.
We apologise for this ongoing issue and for any inconvenience caused and can assure customers that this will be fully corrected as part of the fares changes on 2 March 2025. As always, any customer who believes they may have been overcharged can always contact TfL’s customer services team, who will review their journey history and refund them where required.

Now let’s look at a typical week from the FOI request to see how big the problem might be. The table shows the number of journeys in each direction which were charged the full incorrect single fare. If a cap limited the return journey then that is not reflected in the count.

DateOff-peak (£15.70)Peak (£32.10)Off-peak (£15.70)Peak (£32.10)
Reading to Zone 1Zone 1 to Reading
14/10/202419196156115
15/10/2024190162210147
16/10/2024197140208187
17/10/2024248166241141
18/10/20242015415696
19/10/2024252256
20/10/2024159161

The first point to note is that anyone making 3 or more return trips at peak times will have been capped correctly at the weekly rate. You’ll notice that there is a drop off on Fridays, but the fact that Tuesday to Thursday is pretty constant says that many of those using PAYG during the week do not go into the office on more than two days. There may be some people who commute from London to Reading, but they are at a disadvantage because the return journey will be charged off-peak, meaning that they will have to travel on four days to reach the weekly cap. Any weekly commutes from Reading where the inward journey is made after 0930 and the return is made between 1600-1900 will not have been overcharged because the off-peak cap will limit the return fare.


Leaving aside commuters, the number of off-peak journeys which have been overcharged by 40p each way is significant. Since the fares change on 3rd March 2024 over 100 people have been overcharged almost every day that trains ran. Most days the figure is between 200-300. On Saturday 6th April 2024, 742 people were overcharged into London and 671 on the return to Reading. My belief is that a return from Reading to Paddington plus two tube or Elizabeth line journeys within zone 1 is a significantly popular usage pattern. This means that most of those making off-peak journeys will probably not have reached the cap.


What happens next?​


The response from TfL above suggests that people will have to complain to get redress. I did try to clarify that point and my hope is that they will arrange automatic refunds, but in the meantime you are encouraged to contact them. Contactless journey history is stored for 13 months, so the earliest journeys will be available for query until the end of March 2025. If you haven’t already set up a TfL account and linked your contactless card to it then I strongly suggest that you do. Once linked, all journey history is immediately available, and you can print off and save the details for future reference.


If you want to identify overcharges yourself then here are the key figures. The Monday to Sunday weekly cap is £172.10 and if you have reached that then it is almost certain that you haven’t been overcharged in that week, even if you were on the first few days. The Anytime cap on a weekday is £68.20 and the off-peak cap (after 0930 and all day weekends) is £31.90. Remember that Fridays in March, April and May 2024 were treated as off-peak all day. The peak single fare for Reading to a zone 1 Underground station should be £31.80, but has been charged at £32.10 in error. The peak fare is charged both ways between 0630-0930 and outward from London between 1600-1900.


The off-peak single fare is £15.30, but has been charged at £15.70 in error. If you made any additional journeys (either tube or bus) between your inward and outward journeys then you will have reached the off-peak cap and will not have been overcharged for the day.


The best way to contact TfL about any overcharges is to go into your journey history online and click on one of the journeys which have been overcharged. This will expand on the detail for the journey and underneath is a button to contact TfL about that journey. Clicking that button brings up a form where you can explain what has happened. There is no need to enter any of your personal details as they are all available to TfL automatically.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,904
This is generally the approach now with so many things and certainly not limited to the rail (transport in general) industry.

We’ve made a mistake, let’s not say anything and hope nobody notices.
When someone notices, let’s still keep as quiet as we can about it and deal with the one customer at a time.
When it’s clear we haven’t got away with it and it becomes public knowledge let’s make it the customer’s problem and job to rectify the issue.

It stinks but it’s what we see quite frequently.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,451
Location
Somerset
This is generally the approach now with so many things and certainly not limited to the rail (transport in general) industry.

We’ve made a mistake, let’s not say anything and hope nobody notices.
When someone notices, let’s still keep as quiet as we can about it and deal with the one customer at a time.
When it’s clear we haven’t got away with it and it becomes public knowledge let’s make it the customer’s problem and job to rectify the issue.

It stinks but it’s what we see quite frequently.
To be honest, it probably always was - aided by the fact that those affected would have had far fewer opportunities to a) find out at all, b) realise it didn’t just affect them and c) make it public.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
18,153
My view is this is an appalling situation. TfL/GWR should be made to identify who has been overcharged and refund them without the customers having to claim. Train companies seem to hold years worth of data when it comes to investigating passenger wrong doing but I'm sure the data won't exist when the ball is on the other foot.

If the data genuinely isn't available then an effective regulator should penalise these origanisations to at least ensure they do not benefit from their wrongdoing, however unintentional it was and to provide a deterrent against future transgressions. If only we had an effective regulator.....
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,904
Ah yes. Schrödinger’s data, a bit like Schrödinger’s CCTV footage that exists to help the railway but not to help the passenger.
 

Wallsendmag

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2014
Messages
6,288
Location
Wallsend or somewhere on the ECML
My view is this is an appalling situation. TfL/GWR should be made to identify who has been overcharged and refund them without the customers having to claim. Train companies seem to hold years worth of data when it comes to investigating passenger wrong doing but I'm sure the data won't exist when the ball is on the other foot.

If the data genuinely isn't available then an effective regulator should penalise these origanisations to at least ensure they do not benefit from their wrongdoing, however unintentional it was and to provide a deterrent against future transgressions. If only we had an effective regulator.....
Isn't this TfL's mistake not GWR?
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
8,582
Location
Crayford
Isn't this TfL's mistake not GWR?
Yes, or possibly Cubic on behalf of TfL. However, depending on how the revenue is split it is not clear which organisation may have benefitted. If the zone 1 fare is deducted and the rest given to GWR (with a small percentage to EL) then they will have been over renumerated. If GWR/EL just get the single fare to Paddington then it is TfL who are up.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,992
Location
K
Yes, or possibly Cubic on behalf of TfL. However, depending on how the revenue is split it is not clear which organisation may have benefitted. If the zone 1 fare is deducted and the rest given to GWR (with a small percentage to EL) then they will have been over renumerated. If GWR/EL just get the single fare to Paddington then it is TfL who are up.
GWR will only have benefitted by the 2% of their management fee (or whatever it was) The bulk or the overcharge will have gone to either TFL or HM Govt.
 

Adam Williams

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2018
Messages
3,608
Location
Warks
Why don't TfL take this data from PMS instead of maintaining their own duplicative CPAY fares data - which, by their own admission, they're unable to update in a timely manner or on an adhoc basis?
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
8,582
Location
Crayford
Why don't TfL take this data from PMS instead of maintaining their own duplicative CPAY fares data - which, by their own admission, they're unable to update in a timely manner or on an adhoc basis?
Does PMS include fares between Underground and DLR stations without any NR involvement?
 

Adam Williams

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2018
Messages
3,608
Location
Warks
Does PMS include fares between Underground and DLR stations without any NR involvement?
I'm not sure I see the relevance to this particular case.

The PAC fare has been set to £31.80 in PMS on the flow between 3149 and 0785 for ages.

Why is that not the basis in cases where we're doing CPAY from National Rail stations? CPAY fares have also been set in PMS in conjunction with returns submitted by TOC pricing managers as part of project Oval. Why are those being manually re-entered by Cubic into a completely different system? How does that make any sense at all?

I don't understand why we're continuing to use something that's clearly not fit for purpose here and not even trying to reconcile against the data that does exist in the NR fares data? Fine, you can't do all of what TfL's system does with PMS data alone - I don't dispute that - but this current status quo is just a disconnected mess. And it means that no retailers have any hope of being able to correctly advise passengers on the different ways in which they can pay for their journey, and the costs involved.
 
Last edited:

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
8,582
Location
Crayford
I'm not sure I see the relevance to this particular case.
Well the CPAY system needs to be able to charge all users what is due. Look, I agree that the current system is a mess. There needs to be some sort of interface between the two. Perhaps PMS (what does that stand for, by the way?) needs to have a field(s) to indicate what entry on the CPAY system to update for each fare. Then it can all be updated in a simple batch job.
 

eta

Member
Joined
22 Jun 2022
Messages
37
Location
Cardiff
Presumably what is meant here by "PMS" is just the regular National Rail fares database, as available on BRFares -- the relevant entries being https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=RDG&dest=0785&tkt=PAC (peak) and https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=RDG&dest=0785&tkt=POC (off-peak).

Given these already have their own ticket code (PAC for peak, POC for off-peak), importing this data into whatever TfL use doesn't seem very difficult at all. The question is really where the "ultimate source of truth" is, and as Adam Williams points out, why there aren't reconciliation processes in place to catch discrepancies...
 

Adam Williams

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2018
Messages
3,608
Location
Warks
Perhaps PMS (what does that stand for, by the way?)

Presumably what is meant here by "PMS" is just the regular National Rail fares database

The current incarnation of the "thing that deals with fares" in National Rail land is called PMS ("Product Management System") and it's responsible for generating the RSPS5045 fares data and also dealing with timetable creation (for things not from Network Rail) / maintenance / consolidation etc. TOC pricing managers use it to enter fares, data from it is used by the reservations system, by retailers, ticket validation systems etc.

As ever, it's outsourced software; Civica in this case I think.
 

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
5,473
Location
London
Presumably what is meant here by "PMS" is just the regular National Rail fares database, as available on BRFares -- the relevant entries being https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=RDG&dest=0785&tkt=PAC (peak) and https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=RDG&dest=0785&tkt=POC (off-peak).

Given these already have their own ticket code (PAC for peak, POC for off-peak), importing this data into whatever TfL use doesn't seem very difficult at all. The question is really where the "ultimate source of truth" is, and as Adam Williams points out, why there aren't reconciliation processes in place to catch discrepancies...
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you...Here's what the TfL fares data (in this case taken from Oyster Fares Central as it all fits on one screen there) tells you if you search for High Wycombe to Euston Square:

Screenshot 2025-02-19 180256.png

Quite how they've managed to come up with fares to a station in Zone 1 that avoid Zone 1 is anyone's guess! I can only assume it involves changing onto the Central Line at West/South Ruislip, then onto the Circle at Notting Hill Gate (and potentially again at Edgware Road.)

Meanwhile, over on BRFares we see exactly what we'd expect.
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
8,582
Location
Crayford
That avoiding zone 1 description has got worse.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,547
Yes, or possibly Cubic on behalf of TfL. However, depending on how the revenue is split it is not clear which organisation may have benefitted. If the zone 1 fare is deducted and the rest given to GWR (with a small percentage to EL) then they will have been over renumerated. If GWR/EL just get the single fare to Paddington then it is TfL who are up.
If it is TfL who are responsible for administering this, they need to be the body who refund customers. It would then be for them to settle with GW or whomever within the industry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top