Transport for Wales Rail - Fraud Enquiry - 'Misusing Multiflex Tickets'

[AlterEgo]

That's hilariously bad wording. I'm actually shocked it is so vague.

 

[AdamWW]

But equally "single tickets" can be interpreted as meaning "individual tickets", i.e. you can use them one at a time. They are confusing the term "single ticket" and "single journey".

Yes exactly!

They are using the word in a specific sense and I don't think it's reasonable to assume that everyone will interpret it in that way.

Particularly someone who isn't familiar with rail transport in the UK.

 

[Haywain]

It first tells you they are 12 return tickets (which is what 'single bidirectional' basically means)

It might tell you that, but it doesn't tell me that.

I think it relies on the assumption that the word "single" is taken in the UK rail concept of one way.

Single is used in the same way in most areas of transport and is widely understood as meaning a one-way journey.

 

[Class73Electro]

It might tell you that, but it doesn't tell me that.

Single is used in the same way in most areas of transport and is widely understood as meaning a one-way journey.

But what is bidirectional? Single = 1 way, bi-directional - two directions? Still seems confusing to me - A single ticket in two directions?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

But what is bidirectional? Single = 1 way, bi-directional - two directions? Still seems confusing to me - A single ticket in two directions?

Those of us who are here to give advice know full well what TfW are saying - each ticket can be used once, between A and B, or B and A - but not from A to B and then back to A, because that's two journeys so it needs two tickets. The question is whether a normal member of the public could, without being deliberately obtuse, interpret TfW to be saying that each ticket is for ABA.

 

[AdamWW]

Single is used in the same way in most areas of transport and is widely understood as meaning a one-way journey.

Fair enough - yes not just rail.

So I'll change that to it not being not necessarily obvious to someone not familiar with public transport in the UK.

And absolutely it's widely understood. But not universally.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

But what is bidirectional? Single = 1 way, bi-directional - two directions? Still seems confusing to me - A single ticket in two directions?

Usually a Single ticlet is issued to be valid from A to B. It isn't valid from B to A and may not even be the same price in both directions.

Presumably by calling it a bi-directional ticket they mean it's valid for a single journey from A to B or from B to A.

 

[Class73Electro]

Those of us who are here to give advice know full well what TfW are saying - each ticket can be used once, between A and B, or B and A - but not from A to B and then back to A, because that's two journeys so it needs two tickets. The question is whether a normal member of the public could, without being deliberately obtuse, interpret TfW to be saying that each ticket is for ABA.

That's a reasonable point.

Personally, I am coming from the normal member of the public side here - I've never travelled with TfW, not heard of the ticket before - I generally just know Single and Return - Single = One Way, Return = There and Back. So to me a "Single Bidirectional" would confuse me some what - I would read it as a single ticket going in two directions, which makes little sense to me.

I assume from reading the thread, what it mean is it is a one way ticket either going to or coming from the destination, but feel it could be worded better to make this more clear.

 

[Titfield]

I assume from reading the thread, what it mean is it is a one way ticket either going to or coming from the destination, but feel it could be worded better to make this more clear.

We have not actually seen a Multiflex ticket yet.

 

[Krokodil]

They may do. I'm not sure the 4 hour limit was in place when I last used them. Originally they were valid all day including with a break of journey.

Which I took advantage of on occasion and I wouldn't rule out them coming after me at some point for using them in a way that was valid at the time but which I would struggle now to find evidence for.

The ticket does now disappear after four hours. I can't remember exactly when this was introduced (it required RDG permission to make such a change to how an mTicket worked) but that would have been the point at which the four hour limit was introduced. It's been in place for a while though, certainly before the OP's journeys. Obviously if you take a screenshot the copy on the screenshot isn't going to disappear and won't flag up on the conductor's machine either (unless they spot multiple journeys in the scan history).

 

[Haywain]

So to me a "Single Bidirectional" would confuse me

In which case you're not just going to assume it's a return ticket, are you?

 

[AlterEgo]

Given the complete ambiguity of the phrase "single bidirectional" ticket and the fact the tickets retained their validity in the app for use, it would be hard to TfW to mount any sort of serious case here.

 

[enyoueffsea]

If you have used the ticket correctly sometimes and incorrectly sometimes it makes it more difficult to sustain the argument that you genuinely thought it was a ticket which could be used for a round trip journey.

This is really important, imo. OP’s case of “I didn’t know the ticket was a single journey, the wording led me to believe it was one return” completely falls apart if they have used the ticket correctly at times.

The wording is terrible though.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I agree that single bidirectional is hilariously confusing, the poster child of ambiguous contract terms.

 

[Trainbike46]

Firstly, OP please don't reply until people here have had a look at the situation, and explained your options. Do not even acknowledge receipt to TfW until you know what your options are.

Obviously ensure you've got the correct ticket for all future journeys.

This is really important, imo. OP’s case of “I didn’t know the ticket was a single journey, the wording led me to believe it was one return” completely falls apart if they have used the ticket correctly at times.

Not really, I've used return tickets for single journeys on multiple occasions, as I'm sure many others have in places where day returns are (almost) the same price as singles.

The wording is terrible though.

Agreed.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

For what it's worth, my feeling is that the railway won't be put off pursuing this by arguments that the wording is unclear - the railway knows what the wording was meant to mean, so they will expect everyone else to be in the same position.

But once someone who isn't in the railway gets involved, I would expect the lack of clarity to become a real problem for the railway. So I think a court (whether civil or criminal) would come down on the OP's side - and even before that, if the railway were to run their case past a lawyer, I would expect the lawyer to suggest that the railway should back off.

So if the OP is prepared to wait it out and receive a lot of difficult correspondence then I think they will win. But on that analysis, how much is a quiet life worth to the OP?

 

[Haywain]

So I think a court (whether civil or criminal) would come down on the OP's side

The court will look at the evidence presented to it by both sides and make a decision accordingly and, in the case of a criminal court, the decision would be whether the offence charged has been committed. It is naive to think that they would simply take sides.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The court will look at the evidence presented to it by both sides and make a decision accordingly and, in the case of a criminal court, the decision would be whether the offence charged has been committed. It is naive to think that they would simply take sides.

Some rather overly brief wording on my part. At greater elaboration:

When presented with evidence including the wording of the advertising of the ticket, and having had their attention drawn to the implications of the wording by a competent counsel, I would expect a judge in a civil court to conclude that the contract fell in favour of the passenger, and the magistrate(s) or jury in a criminal court to decide either that the contract as advertised meant that the defendant had done nothing wrong, or that the mitigating factor was so great as to make a conviction unconscionable.

 

[Belperpete]

Single is used in the same way in most areas of transport and is widely understood as meaning a one-way journey.

Again, you are confusing the meanings of ticket and journey. A single ticket can be valid for a return journey.

In common English, a single apple is one individual apple, likewise a single ticket is one individual ticket and a single journey is one individual journey. It only has railway specific meaning of a one-way journey if used in the context of a return ticket or return journey. TfW don't appear to have used the word single in the context of a return ticket or return journey, so any lay person is surely entitled to use the common English interpretation. Particularly as TfW have compounded the confusion by talking about bi-directional, which to most people means two-way. It is entirely reasonable to read what they have said as meaning one single ticket can be used for a two-way journey.

As another poster has effectively said, any court is surely going to read what they have actually said, not what they meant to say.

 

[enyoueffsea]

Not really, I've used return tickets for single journeys on multiple occasions, as I'm sure many others have in places where day returns are (almost) the same price as singles

Not disputing that happens but that is not what the OP said they have done.

Slightly hypothetical anyway as we do not know how the OP has used these tickets and may be getting down a rabbit hole that doesn’t need to exist.

 

[Haywain]

Again, you are confusing the meanings of ticket and journey.

No, I am not.

In common English, a single apple is one individual apple, likewise a single ticket is one individual ticket and a single journey is one individual journey. It only has railway specific meaning of a one-way journey if used in the context of a return ticket or return journey. TfW don't appear to have used the word single in the context of a return ticket or return journey, so any lay person is surely entitled to use the common English interpretation. Particularly as TfW have compounded the confusion by talking about bi-directional, which to most people means two-way. It is entirely reasonable to read what they have said as meaning one single ticket can be used for a two-way journey.

As another poster has effectively said, any court is surely going to read what they have actually said, not what they meant to say.

You are simply choosing the interpretation that is most favourable to your view, as you are entitled to. That doesn't make a different view wrong. And it is not a good idea to assume what decision a court would reach before all of the evidence has been heard.

 

[Belperpete]

You are simply choosing the interpretation that is most favourable to your view, as you are entitled to. That doesn't make a different view wrong.

What is your point? You are choosing the interpretation that you prefer, I am choosing mine.

And it is not a good idea to assume what decision a court would reach before all of the evidence has been heard.

Agreed that you cannot presume a court decision, as they sometimes make what can seem perverse rulings. But any court where a decision is being made by a lay judge or magistrate is likely to apply a layman's interpretation of the wording.

 

[AdamWW]

Some rather overly brief wording on my part. At greater elaboration:

For what it's worth I thought your original version was perfectly clear.

 

[Belperpete]

Thinking about this further, someone who has been used to buying one ticket (say a day return) to cover their out and back journeys, is going to start from a presumption that each individual ticket in the multiflex is likewise valid for both out and back journeys. So is there anything in the wording of the app that would disabuse them of that? Not that I have seen. In fact, the ambiguous wording I have seen would only serve to reinforce that notion.

My starting point would probably be to point out that the OP were under the impression that each individual (single) ticket in the multiflex was valid for one out and return (i.e. bidirectional) journey, as stated on the app. Any contract term that conflicts with that would likely be regarded as an unfair term. And to suggest to TfW that if they only intend each ticket to be valid for a single journey, they need to reword their app to make that clear. Also state that now you have been made aware of this, you won't use the tickets in this way again.

My concern however is that TfW could escalate this to TIL, when it could start getting nasty. Might it be worth the OP making an offer to pay for the equivalent number of multiflex tickets as a gesture of goodwill, to avoid this happening?

 

[Bread & cheese]

A comment on the subject of single = one-way, versus single = for one person.
During my many years as a ticket clerk, I was frequently asked for 'a single return', meaning a return for one person.

 

[Wolfie]

Again, you are confusing the meanings of ticket and journey. A single ticket can be valid for a return journey.

In common English, a single apple is one individual apple, likewise a single ticket is one individual ticket and a single journey is one individual journey. It only has railway specific meaning of a one-way journey if used in the context of a return ticket or return journey. TfW don't appear to have used the word single in the context of a return ticket or return journey, so any lay person is surely entitled to use the common English interpretation. Particularly as TfW have compounded the confusion by talking about bi-directional, which to most people means two-way. It is entirely reasonable to read what they have said as meaning one single ticket can be used for a two-way journey.

As another poster has effectively said, any court is surely going to read what they have actually said, not what they meant to say.

I worked variously on international agreements, their integration into UK primary legislation and later HMG's response to litigation against it. Typically language is normally taken as having it's natural everyday English language meaning. Language intended to be more specific, in this case the railway (or transport) industry's specific meaning/definition of the word single, was typically put in single quotation marks. That was done specifically to avoid this sort of situation. It seems like a safe bet that TfW's half-assed wording went nowhere near an even vaguely competent lawyer before being promulgated.

 

[Chrius56000]

. . .I'm inclined to think that TfW's Intended meaning of the phrase "Single Bidirectional Ticket" is that EACH ticket valid for ONE single journey ONLY between the two stations it is purchased for BUT in EITHER direction, e.g. if you booked a book of 10 "Multiflex" tickets between Cardiff Central and Merthyr Tydfil, you can begin each of those ten journeys at EITHER Cardiff Central or Merthyr Tydfil but as soon as you reach the other station the ticket expires and to return you have to validate a fresh ticket from the book, therefore my take on it is that a book of ten tickets is VALID FOR FIVE return journeys which I suspect is what TfW's intended meaning was but their wording is far too ambiguous!

 

[AdamWW]

. . .I'm inclined to think that TfW's Intended meaning of the phrase "Single Bidirectional Ticket" is that EACH ticket valid for ONE single journey ONLY between the two stations it is purchased for BUT in EITHER direction, e.g. if you booked a book of 10 "Multiflex" tickets between Cardiff Central and Merthyr Tydfil, you can begin each of those ten journeys at EITHER Cardiff Central or Merthyr Tydfil but as soon as you reach the other station the ticket expires and to return you have to validate a fresh ticket from the book, therefore my take on it is that a book of ten tickets is VALID FOR FIVE return journeys which I suspect is what TfW's intended meaning was but their wording is far too ambiguous!

I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that this is how they are supposed to work. (You can also see this from the fact that they are described as being 10 tickets for the price of 12.

The question is whether the wording on the app makes this sufficiently clear to everyone.

 

[reb0118]

Have you ever been stopped travelling incorrectly on one or otherwise engaged with them, such as responding to their emails?

Be careful here. Especially if the passenger is using tickets stored on a personal mobile device. Often, passengers can be reported, or flagged, by conductors for flexipass (or equivalent) irregularities, without any apparent interaction. Basically, a generic warning is given such as all mobile/electronic tickets must be downloaded and activated prior to travel. Then any irregularities, such as non activation, or attempted reuse of a used flexi are dealt with by flagging the ticket and attaching a basic note. These then become a "back office" issue with the conductor moving through the train without being bogged down in counter productive cyclical arguments. The more flags a passenger gets the further up the pile they climb for notification/action purposes.

That said, an argument could be made that one had merely loaned one's mobile device to another person, whose details one has no knowledge of - a plausible defence?....Probably not.

That said, why the system allows a used flexi to pass through a barrier hours after activation is beyond me. If my hand held device can identify the previous scans/taps why not the barrier?

 

[Belperpete]

I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that this is how they are supposed to work. (You can also see this from the fact that they are described as being 10 tickets for the price of 12.

Again, if you are someone who has been used to buying say a day return ticket, you will just think that you are getting 12 return tickets for the price of 10. (10 tickets for the price of 12 doesn't seem like a very good deal!)

An argument could be made that if you are used to paying say £6.60 a day, and with multiflex you are now paying say £3.20 a day, that most people would think this was too good to be true. But does the app give you the daily equivalent price? If it just tells you how much the book of 12 costs in total, I doubt that many people would do the arithmetic.