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!
Really interested in your opinions on this, reading my ticket terms and conditions there is nothing at all that would lead the consumer to believe that only using the return portion of the ticket would make that ticket invalid? It only specifies that the outward journey cannot be used without a valid return portion.
Has anyone else also been harrassed by train staff who do not understand the conditions of their own tickets?
You'll not get very far with this argument, I'm afraid.
National Rail Conditions of Travel:
11.3 A return Ticket must be used in the correct sequence (you must use the outward portion of your return Ticket before you use the return portion). The outward portion of a return Ticket is no longer valid for travel once the return portion has been used.
The gateway to Britain's National Rail network. A portal into UK rail travel including train company information and promotions; train times; fares enquiries; ticket purchase and train running information
The gateway to Britain's National Rail network. A portal into UK rail travel including train company information and promotions; train times; fares enquiries; ticket purchase and train running information
I'm still struggling to see anything here that says the ticket would be invalid. It says in sequence, ie not using them the wrong way round, it doesnt say anything about soley using the return portion.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Using the return renders the outward invalid. You don't have to have used the outward at all (or indeed all of either portion, provided the ticket allows break of journey), and there's no solid way of proving if you did or not anyway, bar if you're using it so early in the day you physically couldn't have done.
Using the return renders the outward invalid. You don't have to have used the outward at all (or indeed all of either portion, provided the ticket allows break of journey), and there's no solid way of proving if you did or not anyway, bar if you're using it so early in the day you physically couldn't have done.
Sorry I'm confused, what would using it early in the day have to do with using the return portion of a ticket first? It wouldnt matter whether you physically could or couldnt have used the outward first, travelling on the return portion with the outward ticket never used is a valid ticket, no?
It wouldnt matter whether you physically could or couldnt have used the outward first, travelling on the return portion with the outward ticket never used is a valid ticket, no?
Correct, though staff may question it if it is a situation where using a ticket backwards could be financially advantageous and where there was no saving by buying that wrong-direction return rather than a single and where it was a paper ticket (it would be obvious if an e-ticket had been used backwards if it was scanned). There was a recent case in Disputes where someone was "caught" doing this while not having used the outward and got their details taken, but it wasn't entirely unlikely evidence would have been found of tickets actually being used backwards on previous occasions. Taking details for investigation doesn't necessarily mean improper use will be found on the ticket that was checked when the details were taken.
It is the only way it could be enforced if such a rule existed. (It doesn't).
Correct, though staff may question it if it is a situation where using a ticket backwards could be financially advantageous and where there was no saving by buying that wrong-direction return rather than a single and where it was a paper ticket (it would be obvious if an e-ticket had been used backwards if it was scanned). There was a recent case in Disputes where someone was "caught" doing this while not having used the outward and got their details taken, but it wasn't entirely unlikely evidence would have been found of tickets actually being used backwards on previous occasions. Taking details for investigation doesn't necessarily mean improper use will be found on the ticket that was checked when the details were taken.
Misread sorry, opposite of what I said: is it a crime to spend in UNsavvy ways.
Reading this sub, it does really concern me this presumption of guilt, with innocence needing to be proven. EDIT: I know non ticketed travel is strict liability, but this mindset does seem to be being taking advantage of sometimes.
I think there are questions to be asked if someone uses such a return portion when the single fare for the journey is cheaper. I don’t think it would be unreasonable for rail staff to cancel or withdraw the outward portion.
I think there are questions to be asked if someone uses such a return portion when the single fare for the journey is cheaper. I don’t think it would be unreasonable for rail staff to cancel or withdraw the outward portion.
I agree, that would be completely reasonable since it is invalid anyway.
I do not think it is acceptable for guards to withdraw both sets of ticket with no further documents or even basic information given, especially not when the trip is halfway through and it is a valid ticket.
I think there are questions to be asked if someone uses such a return portion when the single fare for the journey is cheaper. I don’t think it would be unreasonable for rail staff to cancel or withdraw the outward portion.
Agree. Most people doing this early in the day will be up to no good. The other form of fraud that can be done with this is buying two off peak returns, one in each direction, and continuing to use each return portion as a de facto season ticket until it gets scanned. Harder these days but there are still routes where it is possible.
I think there's some slight cross-purposes in this thread.
I'm sure everyone (even the most zealous RPI) agrees that this sequence of events is allowed:
Use outward portion
Use return portion
And that this sequence of events is not allowed:
Use return portion
Use outward portion
What I think the OP is asking is, is this ok:
Use return portion
(that's it)
I think some people are saying that that's ok; however in the NRCoT
11.3 A return Ticket must be used in the correct sequence (you must use the outward portion of your return Ticket before you use the return portion). The outward portion of a return Ticket is no longer valid for travel once the return portion has been used.
(my emphasis) one possible reading would be that, well, only-use-the-return is not allowed.
What's the actual rule? Should the NRCoT actually say "(you must not use the outward portion of your return Ticket after you use the return portion)"? Is there anyone at RDG who would understand the difference?
I do not think it is acceptable for guards to withdraw both sets of ticket with no further documents or even basic information given, especially not when the trip is halfway through and it is a valid ticket.
If a ticket is withdrawn for investigation that it may be being used fraudulently or incorrectly issued (rather than that it WAS being used in such a way there and then) a receipt must be issued which allows the journey to be completed as originally intended. It seems in the Disputes case referenced the guard failed to do this, either due to their error or the TOC's incorrect policy.
Agree. Most people doing this early in the day will be up to no good. The other form of fraud that can be done with this is buying two off peak returns, one in each direction, and continuing to use each return portion as a de facto season ticket until it gets scanned. Harder these days but there are still routes where it is possible.
I would point out this is probably only made worse by the fact that the constant locks put on gates, force the paper ticket to be checked manually and not sucked up by the machine.
11.3 A return Ticket must be used in the correct sequence (you must use the outward portion of your return Ticket before you use the return portion). The outward portion of a return Ticket is no longer valid for travel once the return portion has been used.
(my emphasis) one possible reading would be that, well, only-use-the-return is not allowed.
What's the actual rule? Should the NRCoT actually say "(you must not use the outward portion of your return Ticket after you use the return portion)"? Is there anyone at RDG who would understand the difference?
It's badly worded but the sentence after the bit in bold would seem to allow using the return and not the outward.
Plus there's break of journey which is permissible on the vast majority of return tickets including all Anytime ones:
Unless excluded as part of a specific Ticket’s terms and conditions you may start,
or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return Ticket) at
any intermediate station, except as shown in Condition 16.3 below, provided that the Ticket
you hold is valid for the trains you want to use. You may also end your journey (in
either direction in the case of a return Ticket) before the destination shown on the
Ticket.
It would seem pretty obvious that if you can miss out part of a leg you would be able to miss out all of it too (though the above provision generally covers this, not the BoJ one).
I think there's some slight cross-purposes in this thread.
I'm sure everyone (even the most zealous RPI) agrees that this sequence of events is allowed:
Use outward portion
Use return portion
And that this sequence of events is not allowed:
Use return portion
Use outward portion
What I think the OP is asking is, is this ok:
Use return portion
(that's it)
I think some people are saying that that's ok; however in the NRCoT
11.3 A return Ticket must be used in the correct sequence (you must use the outward portion of your return Ticket before you use the return portion). The outward portion of a return Ticket is no longer valid for travel once the return portion has been used.
(my emphasis) one possible reading would be that, well, only-use-the-return is not allowed.
What's the actual rule? Should the NRCoT actually say "(you must not use the outward portion of your return Ticket after you use the return portion)"? Is there anyone at RDG who would understand the difference?
I think it becomes more a question of what can the consumer reasonably be led to believe is a valid ticket, there is dispute on this subject even within your community of experts, I think the ticket companies need to make the terms alot clearer here.
I think it becomes more a question of what can the consumer reasonably be led to believe is a valid ticket, there is dispute on this subject even within your community of experts, I think the ticket companies need to make the terms alot clearer here.
I do think that part of the NRCoT is badly worded, yes. Just like a lot of it is.
However, asymmetrically priced return tickets are likely to go away before anyone bothers rewording it. They no longer exist in the Project Oval area for instance, even where they did before. And intercity travel is moving away from return fares entirely, so period returns are likely to largely vanish too, and that's the other reason for it (to catch people using an Anytime Return as a de-facto 5 day season ticket).
If a ticket is withdrawn for investigation that it may be being used fraudulently or incorrectly issued (rather than that it WAS being used in such a way there and then) a receipt must be issued which allows the journey to be completed as originally intended. It seems in the Disputes case referenced the guard failed to do this, either due to their error or the TOC's incorrect policy.
I think you should consider the possibility that some guards/RPI's do get off on the power trip that comes with having some powers whilst not being held in any meaningful way to the regulatory or professional standards that the police, for example, are bound by. Just as a 3rd possibility to error or policy error.
I think it becomes more a question of what can the consumer reasonably be led to believe is a valid ticket, there is dispute on this subject even within your community of experts, I think the ticket companies need to make the terms alot clearer here.
And those using such tickets need to be aware of cheaper and completely non-suspicious tickets and use them instead. I mean, if you are trying to save money, why not save a couple of quid more by buying a ticket that allows you to do exactly what you wish with minimal prospect of being questioned on how you are using the ticket?
11.3 isn't very well written, but to my mind its written on the presumption that both parts of the ticket are used, and its simply saying the return part can't be used first
There are three phrases:
A return Ticket must be used in the correct sequence
There's no reference to only using one part of the ticket
The problem, of course, is that when stuff is badly worded it becomes open to interpretation, and some RPIs (or the people that train them) might interpret it differently to how most of us are
I do think that part of the NRCoT is badly worded, yes. Just like a lot of it is.
However, asymmetrically priced return tickets are likely to go away before anyone bothers rewording it. They no longer exist in the Project Oval area for instance, even where they did before. And intercity travel is moving away from return fares entirely.
Well that's something, I personally will never get the train again because of how traumatic my experience with this has been. I have noticed more and more in recent months the power trips, and the being treated as a criminal when you have paid the full, and usually pretty expensive price.
I dont know if you work for them, I presume so. But that is just my feedback, that as a full fare paying customer I have been treated so so badly by staff before.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And those using such tickets need to be aware of cheaper and completely non-suspicious tickets and use them instead. I mean, if you are trying to save money, why not save a couple of quid more by buying a ticket that allows you to do exactly what you wish with minimal prospect of being questioned on how you are using the ticket?
And those using such tickets need to be aware of cheaper and completely non-suspicious tickets and use them instead. I mean, if you are trying to save money, why not save a couple of quid more by buying a ticket that allows you to do exactly what you wish with minimal prospect of being questioned on how you are using the ticket?
because you get questioned regardless, regardless of what ticket I buy, I could buy first class and they would question me even harder for not looking like I belong there. That is just my point, I guess my point I will leave RailUK forums with.
Well that's something, I personally will never get the train again because of how traumatic my experience with this has been. I have noticed more and more in recent months the power trips, and the being treated as a criminal when you have paid the full, and usually pretty expensive price.
Sorry, are you the original poster on that Disputes thread?
If so, why on earth were you using a wrong direction return in the morning when a single was cheaper? It is a very odd thing to do indeed and it is unsurprising that staff were suspicious. You are, if you do that, paying more than the full fare, and there is no legitimate reason I can think of to do that. Only if the wrong direction return was cheaper than the single, or if the return journey was being made in the evening having got a lift or similar for the outward, does it make any sense at all.
and when it becomes such a 'consent driven' prosecution process, you will inevitably end up with more prosecutions or fines paid by honest, anxious, non-legally educated people. Austistic people who are more easily manipulated and confused by social situations. The hardened criminals are not scared of by a minor criminal record. I just really think it is a dangerously unfair system, and there is such little oversight. All those TOC's who abused the SJP system, do we call them fraudsters like you call a uni student who lied about their railcard?
and when it becomes such a 'consent driven' prosecution process, you will inevitably end up with more prosecutions or fines paid by honest, anxious, non-legally educated people. Austistic people who are more easily manipulated and confused by social situations. The hardened criminals are not scared of by a minor criminal record. I just really think it is a dangerously unfair system, and there is such little oversight.
I think that's a wider debate, probably more for the Speculative section, but I don't entirely disagree.
However that doesn't change the fact that someone using a wrong direction return early in the morning where it's cheaper than a correct direction return and where a single is cheaper than both is extremely suspicious and almost certainly does intend to either use the ticket the wrong way round or is using it repeatedly as it wasn't scanned/marked.
I have been asked about this once, for what it's worth, when I actually made a return journey very early in the day for a legitimate reason (i went outward at about 5am and was checked while returning at about 7). I said what I had done and why and the RPI went on their way.
It is possible for both sides to be in the wrong. I find it odd that people seem to struggle with that rather a lot in debates such as this, not just here but all over the place.
Sorry, are you the original poster on that Disputes thread?
If so, why on earth were you using a wrong direction return in the morning when a single was cheaper? It is a very odd thing to do indeed and it is unsurprising that staff were suspicious. You are, if you do that, paying more than the full fare, and there is no legitimate reason I can think of to do that. Only if the wrong direction return was cheaper than the single, or if the return journey was being made in the evening having got a lift or similar for the outward, does it make any sense at all.
This is my point, there are so many reasons why someone could end up travelling on the return. It is a valid ticket, do we question all valid tickets this way, how does one decide it 'looks suspicious'?. I note there is a thread on here from a woman who did it and everyone said it was allowed, I dont know how you can operate like this without making assumptions about people and being biased! It just seems so open to abuse of profiling, assumption of guilt, and lack of due legal process.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think that's a wider debate, probably more for the Speculative section, but I don't entirely disagree.
However that doesn't change the fact that someone using a wrong direction return early in the morning where it's cheaper than a correct direction return and where a single is cheaper than both is extremely suspicious and almost certainly does intend to either use the ticket the wrong way round or is using it repeatedly as it wasn't scanned/marked.
It is possible for both sides to be in the wrong. I find it odd that people seem to struggle with that rather a lot in debates such as this, not just here but all over the place.
I think this is the crux of my issue with the current system, 'being wrong' has shifted to a moral, personal opinion, assumptions based thing, but with legal consequences. The law should not be so open to abuse in this way, ancient railway laws or other.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think that's a wider debate, probably more for the Speculative section, but I don't entirely disagree.
However that doesn't change the fact that someone using a wrong direction return early in the morning where it's cheaper than a correct direction return and where a single is cheaper than both is extremely suspicious and almost certainly does intend to either use the ticket the wrong way round or is using it repeatedly as it wasn't scanned/marked.
I have been asked about this once, for what it's worth, when I actually made a return journey very early in the day for a legitimate reason (i went outward at about 5am and was checked while returning at about 7). I said what I had done and why and the RPI went on their way.
It is possible for both sides to be in the wrong. I find it odd that people seem to struggle with that rather a lot in debates such as this, not just here but all over the place.
I would also really like people to question WHY the exact same journey is almost half the price for people travelling one direction at the exact same time. I do not think that is right at all. Its just price gouging, where is the moral outcry for this?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Especially on commuter trains, how are young people to earn money to lift themselves out of poverty when the railway charges them double to go to work each day. It is so broken as a system, and I guess people who are not born into poverty are insulated from the reality of how hard it is at the moment, rent is astronomical and then all remaining money is spent paying train companies price gouges so they can make more money off an already incredibly overpacked train.
I would also really like people to question WHY the exact same journey is almost half the price for people travelling one direction at the exact same time. I do not think that is right at all. Its just price gouging, where is the moral outcry for this?
On the one hand you claim that the fares are price gouging, but on the other you recognise that they are "overpacked". What would the result be of cheaper fares in the popular direction?
I would also really like people to question WHY the exact same journey is almost half the price for people travelling one direction at the exact same time. I do not think that is right at all. Its just price gouging, where is the moral outcry for this?
Yeah so they can make more money because demand is higher so people have to pay it? I think people can understand why people fare evade and yet, that doesnt preclude it from moral outcry.
In my experience (of when the south WCML went to symmetrical fares when London Midland introduced the 3 step fares, a situation which has remained post Oval) absolutely none whatsoever. It's just a means of extracting more money from those who will pay more, which to be honest most of the fare structure is intended to do in some way or other.
People do not travel at peak times in peak directions for a laugh, as it largely isn't one, they do so because they need to travel then. Generally fares, apart from absolutely ridiculous ones like long distance Anytimes, won't do a lot to dissuade that.
