Personally I think it is tremendous news concerning refunds, taxpayers money being given out, if the staff are reduced to a point of not being able to check tickets then this is the only way, not too sure how many it will affect as it as advance tickets are unaffected, £40 million is a crazy amount to lose.
-
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!
Forthcoming changes to National Rail Conditions of Travel
- Thread starter redreni
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Would you think it was tremendous news if your plans changed at the last minute and so you had to lose £200 on an unused Anytime Single from London to Edinburgh?
I agree with you that £40m is a lot and something had to be done, but I think there were plenty of better things to try first than this ultra-customer-unfriendly measure.
The trick is don't buy that ticket as its the same price on the day.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I won't repeat it, but I'd suggest reading upthread for many reasons why it is not always the best option to leave until the last minute to purchase. There are many such reasons.
To add one to the list that I think didn't already get mentioned, another issue is where one is part of a split.
There'll always be a few outliers but they don't surpass the fraud going on, TOD travel on the day and it is sorted.
And this is the tip of the iceberg, ticketless travel is at epidemic proportions.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,499
And effectively banning refunds does absolutely nothing about ticketless travel, other than perhaps encouraging it.
Precisely. This is totally the wrong tool to combat that problem.
Why would banning refunds from a fare paying customer increase the chances of them not buying a ticket in the future?
Fare evasion is different to a fraudulent refund claim.
Its a slow burn to de staff retail, higher penalty fares next I'm guessing.
If I’m penalised for changing my plans late in the day, you create a situation where I’m no longer buying in advance. If my honesty in buying on the day tickets, which cause me friction (because I need to be organised on the day) is never acknowledged by my ticket being checked, it’s then easy to go to “why bother”. Not everyone will do that, but some will.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,499
Well, some people who might buy a ticket and claim a refund if it doesn't get checked might feel that with their experience of tickets not being checked then it's better not to buy one to start with. Especially if they see that other people are only being sold a ticket if they are found not to have one on the train.
They might even read these forums and feel that if they are issued a Penalty Fare Notice they will have a good chance of successfully appealing.
Possibly but if they then fall under ticketless travel and will be penalty fared for not likely a condition change to a ticket.
That seems to me wholly pedantic and childish, if you think you may have to change travel plans don't buy, this has come about I suspect due to tickets en masse being put in for a refund after years of toc’s cutting back on RPI’s/RPO’s and other staff who check tickets.
Next it’ll be penalty fares to rise, the only thing left toc’s have is the stick.
There will be discretion used in certain cases, it’ll just be more bureaucratic than now.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So if I read that right people who commit fraud will continue to do so?
Good luck with pen fare appeals.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,499
Really? What do you reckon my chances will be if I buy a ticket the day before travel and then become ill overnight so I can't travel? They'll ask for medical evidence which I don't have...
Possibly I couldn't comment, I'm old enough to remember having to see letters from drivers if the applicant got a lift and put in for a refund, no different to getting a self cert now I suppose.
This is really just a very naive way - "Simple Innit" - of thinking about the problem. Fare evasion like all crime is complex and is unusual in that people often try to justify the crime to themselves (fares are expensive, the trains run anyway, there is no victim, the industry doesn't value me anyway etc).
I would put good money on this not really moving the dial much positively in terms of the railway's revenue. What has happened here is the railway implementing another anti-consumer measure which further degrades the value of the most expensive tickets.
I am not going to buy any flexible tickets in advance of travel, but that will mean that where I am *only* able to get a flexible ticket a day or two beforehand and want a seat reservation - which is quite common - I'm just not going to buy a ticket. I'll drive.
Fare evasion is an engrained habit in my experience, a culture of entitlement.
Vast numbers have started putting in for refunds since the dawn of online refunds, maybe train delays could be looked at in the future.
It really isn't, fare evasion is a spectrum from the very hardened people to people like my wife who said she wasn't going to bother tapping her Oyster card on the DLR because nobody ever checks. (I did make her tap!)
Because there is a lack of friction contrary to applying for refunds from booking offices. Friction is what people have been arguing to introduce. You seem to think it is better to drop a nuke on the idea that people can get a refund at all on the most expensive tickets. It is a bad idea, one dreamed up by the Treasury. If you work on the railway I can tell you the Treasury have lots of bad ideas to make your life worse and cheaper by just using "simple innit" blunt tools, and you will regret rowing in behind them.
Perhaps companies need to take a leaf out of Northern's book. I can't get on the train without the guard coming down and checking tickets.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Bletchley guards certainly need to! It's a matter of pride up north, it's a matter of "as little as you can get away with" down south.
I was referring to habitual fare evasion not a mistake in tapping out, they may be treated the same but you are correct they’re different in terms of scale.
This stops fraud, I’ve already stated it’s a slow burn to job losses so I’m not too sure what nukes “the treasury” can impact upon that.
You may not like it or I can tell you don’t like it but it is happening nonetheless, of over 35 years in and around the industry few people buy full opens in advance, is this a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
Yes.
Will it stop fraud due to tickets not being checked?
Yes.
Will it inconvenience 1000’s of regular travellers?
No.
This stops fraud, I’ve already stated it’s a slow burn to job losses so I’m not too sure what nukes “the treasury” can impact upon that.
You may not like it or I can tell you don’t like it but it is happening nonetheless, of over 35 years in and around the industry few people buy full opens in advance, is this a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
Yes.
Will it stop fraud due to tickets not being checked?
Yes.
Will it inconvenience 1000’s of regular travellers?
No.
Perhaps its something to do with longer trains. I did one of my jaunts along the South coast recently and only got checked a couple of times !
py_megapixel
Established Member
No, of course not.
It will stop one specific method of fraud where a passenger buys a ticket and then gets a refund after use.
But there are plenty of others where this makes no difference. Buying a ticket for a shorter journey, claiming discounts without entitlement, reusing flexible tickets, etc.
There was a story I heard of a gent who went 10 years without buying a ticket from Hough Green to Widnes, how true I don’t know but using those services I wouldn’t be surprised.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Southern have even less of an excuse as theirs are OBSs, they have no operational role bar poking their head out at stations to see if there's someone requiring assistance. I find a lot of them do check but there are a few lazy ones who prefer standing fiddling with their phone.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I don't think I've ever *not* been checked while using that service, though if it was a double non gangwayed DMU you could sneak in the front unit.
To be fair, my journey included South Eastern, Southern and SWR, but it was all the traditional "Southern".
I don't think they'd need to be as vociferous as Northern, but a couple of walk throughs on each journey leg would probably make it too awkward/dodgy for persistent fare evasion.
Short stopping? Shouldn’t be done without seeing the ticket to cover the journey, barriers should be set to stop discounts and manually check where possible, using flexi tickets is tough.
They’re all tough to completely do all the time, any of the time to be fair with the amount of RPO’s
Higher penalty fares is what I’ll think will happen nationwide in the end.
Short stopping shouldn't even be a thing. If they can do a cheap ticket between stations A and C, the ticket shouldn't be any more between stations A and B.
The carrot is generally better, as people push back against the stick. The point I made was that some people will respond in that way because the enforcement by operators is poor. That is something that they can deal with, if they choose to - and will have impacts beyond just additional fare income.
I do however agree wholeheartedly that this piece of Treasury brain policy is stupid, pedantic and childish; treating what is a source of fraud in such a heavy handed way as to undermine the attraction of the railway.
I was referring to buying a ticket just to access barriers, Hilsea to Fratton sgl but buying a ticket from Cosham.
Oh yes, no short faring.
I’m not too sure what your definition of short fairing is, I suspect they may differ from mine.
I think I may have crossed over from short stopping to faring, apologies.