Cutting your fare short

[ValleyLines142]

Hi guys,

A thought that popped into my head just a while ago was that of fare evasion. In particular, cutting your journey short.

What I mean by this, is the following:

Last week, I was on board a Penarth to Cardiff train formed of 4 coaches, one Pacer and one Sprinter attached. The conductor was in the Pacer which was the leading unit. I was in the rear unit on the Sprinter. What I have noticed in the past is that the conductor usually changes units at Grangetown, so that he can collect the fares on the front two units and then switch to the rear two units. However, the problem occurs if a passenger boarding at Grangetown or Dingle Road alights in the unit that the conductor has just left, as they effectively may get a free ticket as the conductor isn't on that portion of the train.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, the train I was on last week, the conductor only stayed in the front two coaches throughout the journey to Cardiff. I had a Season Ticket anyway so it didn't matter for me, but a passenger who got on at Penarth who sat across the carriage from me was counting his change ready to pay the fare to wherever he was going. The train made it's way to Cardiff (and to it's final destination of Rhymney) and made the scheduled stops at Dingle Road and Grangetown. He got off at Cardiff with me and when he went to the ticket office, he only asked for a single from Grangetown, which is only £1.50, compared to Penarth which is £2.40. Now apart from me of course, there was no one to prove where he had actually got on, and I could have potentially done the same. Something should really be done to conquer this problem. I thought maybe having two conductors on board, but of course there's revenue and wages to deal with isn't there?

Does this happen anywhere else in the country guys, have you got similar experiences? I wondered whether it's all over the NR network.

Dan

 

[jopsuk]

Yup, very common for people paying for their ticket at the destination to buy a single from the last non-barriered station. Of course, doing that plus a single back to their origin, if they're travelling that day, would usually be more expensive than a CDR from their actual origin.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Yup, very common for people paying for their ticket at the destination to buy a single from the last non-barriered station. Of course, doing that plus a single back to their origin, if they're travelling that day, would usually be more expensive than a CDR from their actual origin.

It's really bad actually, as a member of staff working at the ticket office can't challenge someone as to where they've come from.

 

[yorkie]

Something should really be done to conquer this problem

Something is done, if you read previous topics you'd know There have been several instances reported here where TOCs have put a manual block on a station near a major centre, and anyone arriving at the major station claiming to have boarded at that location and not in possession of an authority to travel is therefore at risk of prosecution.

Does this happen anywhere else in the country guys, have you got similar experiences?

Two lads behind me got on at Leeds, where there are barriers, and (reluctantly) requested tickets to York and then had no means to pay so had to be issued UPFNs. Either they dodged the barriers (which is not exactly difficult) or they had travelled from further afield and were only willing to pay for the journey from Leeds.

I wondered whether it's all over the NR network.

I'm not sure about "all over", but it certainly happens elsewhere.

Of course, it can sometimes be cheaper to pay for a longer journey and start/finish short, but that is entirely legitimate (providing it's not prohibited, e.g. Advance ticket types).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's really bad actually, as a member of staff working at the ticket office can't challenge someone as to where they've come from.

They can be challenged, and we've had people who are being prosecuted ask for advice on here and there have been news articles posted.

 

[Welshman]

I think there have been instances where a TOC has detected an unexpected rise in requests for tickets from a certain nearby unbarriered station, and without warning put a human barrier at that station selling tickets. This, of course, was not known by ticketless folks already on the train.

disregard this post - Yorkie pipped me to it, and expressed the point far more eloquently.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Something is done, if you read previous topics you'd know There have been several instances reported here where TOCs have put a manual block on a station near a major centre, and anyone arriving at the major station claiming to have boarded at that location and not in possession of an authority to travel is therefore at risk of prosecution.

I've never seen this around Cardiff, hope there aren't more cases of this happening!

I'm not sure about "all over", but it certainly happens elsewhere.

Of course, it can sometimes be cheaper to pay for a longer journey and start/finish short, but that is entirely legitimate (providing it's not prohibited, e.g. Advance ticket types).

Yeah, I get you. I find it cheaper sometimes splitting tickets too.

They can be challenged, and we've had people who are being prosecuted ask for advice on here and there have been news articles posted.

I've never seen such examples. I'll have to find these articles.

 

[IanXC]

I've never seen this around Cardiff, hope there aren't more cases of this happening!

Something must be done, but not manual barriers?

 

[yorkie]

I support the principle - providing it is done correctly - however my concern is that there are reports of people being wrongly accused.

For example this is along the lines of what has reportedly happened on some occasions:

A passenger who lives near Headingley station has some business to attend to near Burley Park station. These stations are nearby. He boards at Burley Park. No facilities, boards train, guard does not reach them. Passenger goes to excess fare window:

"Return from Headingley to Leeds please"
"Where is your voucher?"
"I don't have one"
"Why not? We were issuing them at Headingley"
"I boarded at Burley Park, I am going back to Headingley later"
"Ah, you are changing your story! You've probably come from further away and heard about our voucher scheme at Burley Park last week and decided to try Headingley! Right, I'm going to report you for prosecution"

Something like that happened with a customer in the Manchester area, and Northern took him to court and Northern rightly lost the case.

However providing safeguards are in place, the correct questions are asked (ie "Where did you board?" which may be different to the origin for the ticket they request), and passengers starting 'short' (which is legitimate) are not wrongly penalised, then I have no problem with it.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

A thought that popped into my head just a while ago was that of fare evasion. In particular, cutting your journey short.

I assume that you don't work in any retailling position and/or you are very young, because what has 'popped into your head' is one of the most popular forms of deceit used in any situation where a customer pays after consuming (the goods or service).
If you think through other retail situations , you'll see how they nearly all have effective mechanisms in place to ensure that the customer is charged for the full sale and that any attempt to underclaim (eg I only had this much) is captured.

On railway services where a Guard or TM is able to inspect tickets along the whole longth of a train, then they usually do that on departure from key stations.

Yup, very common for people paying for their ticket at the destination to buy a single from the last non-barriered station.

The voucher system used by Northern is an interesting technique used where persistent fare evasion takes place. There is of course no legal requirement to present such a voucher, but the absence and/or ignorance of the voucher is usually enough to inform an RPI that a passenger didn't board at the station at which they claimed to have done. If you spend a little time studying the ORR's statistics for station useage before and after the intoduction of barriers, then you can see quite clearly that the number of tickets from an unstaffed station near to a major centre of employment and/or study suddenly drops when barriers are installed (and as passengers can no longer claim, wrongly of course, that they boarded there).

An operator, ATW in your example, will be fully aware of the level of evasion and will have costed it quite accurately using a number of techniques. They will also have costed the recruitment and employment of more staff, on-board and at stations. It will have been there calculated decision to set the balance where it is - that many staff and that much evasion.

If I could make one more point please? Whilst on this occasion your 'idea' is far from new, but just suppose you really had been the first person to 'think up' a new scheme for evading fares. Would posting it on a public internet forum be the responsible thing to do?

 

[150222]

A few weeks ago I was on a Hadfield to Manchester Piccadilly service. When the guard came through (!) the chap opposite payed for a single from Godley to Ashburys yet stayed on until Piccadilly. He clearly knew what he was doing but if he had just payed for a ticket to Manchester it would not have been much more surely? I despair with people like that.

 

[RJ]

It's really bad actually, as a member of staff working at the ticket office can't challenge someone as to where they've come from.

You want to bet? I used to catch out so many fraudsters who did this it was unbelieveable.

 

[Old Timer]

I support the principle - providing it is done correctly - however my concern is that there are reports of people being wrongly accused.

For example this is along the lines of what has reportedly happened on some occasions:

A passenger who lives near Headingley station has some business to attend to near Burley Park station. These stations are nearby. He boards at Burley Park. No facilities, boards train, guard does not reach them. Passenger goes to excess fare window:

"Return from Headingley to Leeds please"
"Where is your voucher?"
"I don't have one"
"Why not? We were issuing them at Headingley"
"I boarded at Burley Park, I am going back to Headingley later"
"Ah, you are changing your story! You've probably come from further away and heard about our voucher scheme at Burley Park last week and decided to try Headingley! Right, I'm going to report you for prosecution"

Something like that happened with a customer in the Manchester area, and Northern took him to court and Northern rightly lost the case.

However providing safeguards are in place, the correct questions are asked (ie "Where did you board?" which may be different to the origin for the ticket they request), and passengers starting 'short' (which is legitimate) are not wrongly penalised, then I have no problem with it.

With respect Yorkie, the Prosecution was not without sound foundation. The explanation given at the window is a 100% classic example of attempted fare evasion, as far as the member of staff is concerned. Every person will then offer a different station with a reason for why they did not have a ticket. I am afraid this scenario has been about for years and is one of the classic tests for evasion. That is why I used to do route lockdowns

When arriving at the station and upon going to the excess window the passenger has NOT declared the actual journey he was undertaking contrary to S5 of the 1889 Act. This is quite critical because the "right" to start a journey from a closer station technically only exists when one already has a ticket. He did not and so should have explained the situation.

The CORRECT far payable would have been single tickets for each leg of the journey. Now Industry practice has long been that pretty much everyone would issue a return to the further station but that is not correct in accordance with the letter of the law.

By stating he had travelled from a different station initially he was mis-stating the journey and all deals are off. What he should have done was to explain PRECISELY his journey, in which case it would not have appeared as if he was offering a short fare. I have to say that I would have reported him had this taken place in my day, but stopped further action when he was able to provide reasonable evidence to support his case.

I really CANNOT stay how important it is to be completely honest in such situations, as it is for the staff to decide how to deasl with the fare and not the passenger.

...The voucher system used by Northern is an interesting technique used where persistent fare evasion takes place. There is of course no legal requirement to present such a voucher, but the absence and/or ignorance of the voucher is usually enough to inform an RPI that a passenger didn't board at the station at which they claimed to have done.

It constitutes an authority to travel in accordance with the NCoC, as this does NOT require a fare to be paid at the time. It also complies with S5 in that the passenger is now travelling with authority, and also resolves the Insurance scenario because the passenger is fully insured and is not a trespasser.

Hope this helps.

 

[jha4ceb]

As an aside, I believe that Burley Park does have a credit-card-only TVM -- but I'm sure it won't sell a ticket originating in Headingley.

 

[Old Timer]

A few weeks ago I was on a Hadfield to Manchester Piccadilly service. When the guard came through (!) the chap opposite payed for a single from Godley to Ashburys yet stayed on until Piccadilly. He clearly knew what he was doing but if he had just payed for a ticket to Manchester it would not have been much more surely? I despair with people like that.

Anyone dealing with revenue protection soon realises exactly how many people will deliberately avoid paying for a ticket, and exactly how many will only pay when they are challenges (there is a slight difference).

Generally the more important in station the person, the lesser the value of the amount avoided. I have known lowly paid people forge season tickets because they could not afford the fare to travel to work, and I have known people holding senior and responsible jobs, avoid a fare that would have been small change for them.
People who do not work in that area simply do not understand just how acute the problem is, and take every case where a revenue protection inspector becomes involved as aking to being hanmded over to the Gestapo.

This has translated into serial abuse here when a person comes on with part of a story, which is subsequently discovered to leave out certain material facts which completely reverse the situation.

There have been a number on here where the full information has only been obtained off-site and the person far from being the whiter than white victim of TOC persecution has actually deliberately set out with intent ot defraud and has been caught bang to rights.

To quote Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" all that glitter is not gold

MOROCCO:
O hell! what have we here?
A carrion Death, within whose empty eye
There is a written scroll! I'll read the writing.
All that glitters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgment old,
Your answer had not been inscroll'd:
Fare you well; your suit is cold.

 

[jkdd77]

The CORRECT far payable would have been single tickets for each leg of the journey. Now Industry practice has long been that pretty much everyone would issue a return to the further station but that is not correct in accordance with the letter of the law.

This is not correct at all.

If the return ticket requested permitted break of journey, (and all Headingley- Leeds flexible tickets do appear to), then the passenger was entirely entitled to request a return ticket from that station, and that return ticket was a "correct fare" for the journey made.

The passenger did truthfully state his originating station when asked, so there is no fraud or deception there.

 

[Old Timer]

This is not correct at all.

If the return ticket requested permitted break of journey, (and all Headingley- Leeds flexible tickets do appear to), then the passenger was entirely entitled to request a return ticket from that station, and that return ticket was a "correct fare" for the journey made.

The passenger did truthfully state his originating station when asked, so there is no fraud or deception there.

I suggest you read the wording of the 1889 Act. The fare payable is for the journey being undertaken, the fact that the person is making a return journey is completely irrelevant as far as the Act is concerned.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Re: Vouchers

It constitutes an authority to travel in accordance with the NCoC, as this does NOT require a fare to be paid at the time. It also complies with S5 in that the passenger is now travelling with authority, and also resolves the Insurance scenario because the passenger is fully insured and is not a trespasser.

Thank you, yes these are additional benefits and I hadn't considered the inverse consequence of liability to a passenger whose voucher demonstrated that their journey was shorter than their actual travel by rail!

At the crux of the voucher system, which I was trying to elicit, is the obligation to present the voucher, which is unlike the obligation to produce a ticket. Whereas presentation of a ticket or voucher may constitute adequate authority to travel, the failure to produce a voucher will not in itself constitute an Offence (where the failure to produce a ticket from a staffed and fully-functioning station will).
But is an excellent basis from which to start some simple enquiries!

 

[transmanche]

When arriving at the station and upon going to the excess window the passenger has NOT declared the actual journey he was undertaking contrary to S5 of the 1889 Act.

And this is the point that I gave up reading out of despair.

 

[yorkie]

When arriving at the station and upon going to the excess window the passenger has NOT declared the actual journey he was undertaking contrary to S5 of the 1889 Act. This is quite critical because the "right" to start a journey from a closer station technically only exists when one already has a ticket. He did not and so should have explained the situation.

I don't think so, someone can buy any ticket they want. I sometimes go to York ticket office and ask for a ticket from Poppleton, and there is no requirement to have travelled from there as I may be going back there and it is valid to start short I am entitled to ask for it The question "Where have you travelled from?" would be a separate question.

Passengers have the right to request a ticket for a longer journey providing the ticket is valid for starting/finishing short, this is stated in the Retail Standards Guide, which sets out the requirements for TOCs to adhere to the The Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSO). "Failure to comply with the TSA can ... ultimately result in loss of the licence to operate train services".

It's not the same railway now as it was in the 1980s

 

[Mutant Lemming]

A few weeks ago I was on a Hadfield to Manchester Piccadilly service. When the guard came through (!) the chap opposite payed for a single from Godley to Ashburys yet stayed on until Piccadilly. He clearly knew what he was doing but if he had just payed for a ticket to Manchester it would not have been much more surely? I despair with people like that.

You are presuming guilt without sufficient evidence. They may have held a season ticket or pass covering the rest of the journey and were legitimately paying for the leg of the journey they held no ticket for.

 

[yorkie]

You are presuming guilt without sufficient evidence. They may have held a season ticket or pass covering the rest of the journey and were legitimately paying for the leg of the journey they held no ticket for.

Unless the ticket(s) held by the passenger are inspected it is impossible to comment. So either 150222 made such an inspection, or was able to witness the inspection by the guard in close enough detail to assert that no additional ticket was shown, then it is impossible for 150222 to know if the customer was travelling with a valid combination of tickets or not. It's not that uncommon for additional tickets to be sold on trains.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Once again we have a thread that worries me a bit in terms of what a couple of people have said.
It is just sad that innocent people are being assumed to be guilty for no real reason.

If your return journey is going further back along the route than your outwards journey - there is no reason at all why you cannot ask for a return from the further station, as long as the ticket allows a break of journey on the outward portion. It is very worrying that people are being accused of fare evasion and even been taken to court for doing that.

It is a way of buying tickets that I make use of a fair bit at times, and I really wouldn't know what to do if I was accused of being a criminal for doing so (and this is coming from someone who uses the railways a fair amount, has a half decent knowledge of such things etc - imagine if it was an old granny, or someone like my girlfriend who is very shy and doesn't like confrontation with strangers).

In terms of the actual thread - yep, I've seen it around Cardiff too. ATW have put in barriers in quite a few places over the last few years though, so it is occurring less and less.

 

[Bungle73]

When arriving at the station and upon going to the excess window the passenger has NOT declared the actual journey he was undertaking contrary to S5 of the 1889 Act. This is quite critical because the "right" to start a journey from a closer station technically only exists when one already has a ticket. He did not and so should have explained the situation.

The CORRECT far payable would have been single tickets for each leg of the journey. Now Industry practice has long been that pretty much everyone would issue a return to the further station but that is not correct in accordance with the letter of the law.

By stating he had travelled from a different station initially he was mis-stating the journey and all deals are off. What he should have done was to explain PRECISELY his journey, in which case it would not have appeared as if he was offering a short fare. I have to say that I would have reported him had this taken place in my day, but stopped further action when he was able to provide reasonable evidence to support his case.

I really CANNOT stay how important it is to be completely honest in such situations, as it is for the staff to decide how to deasl with the fare and not the passenger.


It constitutes an authority to travel in accordance with the NCoC, as this does NOT require a fare to be paid at the time. It also complies with S5 in that the passenger is now travelling with authority, and also resolves the Insurance scenario because the passenger is fully insured and is not a trespasser.

Hope this helps.

The reason he didn't have a ticket is because there were no facilities at his starting station. A lot of tickets allow you to start short; why should a passenger be disadvantaged in this regard simply because the TOC failed to provide adequate facilities? If I turn up at such a station I expect to have available to me all the tickets that would be available had the station had ticket issuing facilities.

As far as I'm concerned all I have to do is tell the clerk is the ticket I require, and as long as it's valid for the journey I wish to make that's all they need to know.

 

[ainsworth74]

I suggest you read the wording of the 1889 Act. The fare payable is for the journey being undertaken, the fact that the person is making a return journey is completely irrelevant as far as the Act is concerned.

The journey being undertaken is Headingley to Leeds (and a return) they are however starting short at Burley Park (as permitted by condition 16 of the NRCoC).

 

[Old Timer]

Re: Vouchers
Thank you, yes these are additional benefits and I hadn't considered the inverse consequence of liability to a passenger whose voucher demonstrated that their journey was shorter than their actual travel by rail!

At the crux of the voucher system, which I was trying to elicit, is the obligation to present the voucher, which is unlike the obligation to produce a ticket. Whereas presentation of a ticket or voucher may constitute adequate authority to travel, the failure to produce a voucher will not in itself constitute an Offence (where the failure to produce a ticket from a staffed and fully-functioning station will).
But is an excellent basis from which to start some simple enquiries!

Just to clarify, there is a legal difference between a Railway Ticket and a pass or other form of authority.

Under one of the Regulation of Railways Acts - I cannot recall just now which one - a ticket has to have the fare paid printed or written on the ticket.

A pass or other authority does not. Neither do they require a reference to the Conditions of Carriage to be displayed, which again is a legal requirement for a ticket.

That is why no money is taken for a pass or an authority. A pass generally is provided to staff, and an authority is given to a member of the public.

In this particular case the vouchr is used by the TOC to authorise a passenger to proceed on their journey, and will provide evidence that they have travelled from the origin with authority. This is necessary because otherwise the passenger would be uninsured and travelling contrary to the NCoC.

The NCoC still require the passenger to produce the Voucher as it has been issued in lieue of a ticket.

A failure to produce the voucher leaves the passenger open to a potential breach of the NCoC (failure to produce) and questioning about their origin, and I can see no reason why anyone should refuse or fail to produce one when requested.

A failure to produce will be used to demonstrate intent under S5 of the 1889 Act.

I don't think so, someone can buy any ticket they want. I sometimes go to York ticket office and ask for a ticket from Poppleton, and there is no requirement to have travelled from there as I may be going back there and it is valid to start short I am entitled to ask for it The question "Where have you travelled from?" would be a separate question.

Passengers have the right to request a ticket for a longer journey providing the ticket is valid for starting/finishing short, this is stated in the Retail Standards Guide, which sets out the requirements for TOCs to adhere to the The Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSO). "Failure to comply with the TSA can ... ultimately result in loss of the licence to operate train services".

It's not the same railway now as it was in the 1980s

The point I am trying to make here is that if someone goes to the ticket office and does as the person in question did, and there just happens to be a station ticket closure on, then the alarm bells will ring - as they did. Effectively How have you travelled from station A when there were ticket checks in operation ? Passenger THEN decides to state that they travelled from another station. This matches precisely the profile and response of someone who is attempting to evade the fare. What would you do bearing in mind the fact that there is a fraud operation in progress ? ?

Once again we have a thread that worries me a bit in terms of what a couple of people have said.
It is just sad that innocent people are being assumed to be guilty for no real reason.

If your return journey is going further back along the route than your outwards journey - there is no reason at all why you cannot ask for a return from the further station, as long as the ticket allows a break of journey on the outward portion. It is very worrying that people are being accused of fare evasion and even been taken to court for doing that.

It is a way of buying tickets that I make use of a fair bit at times, and I really wouldn't know what to do if I was accused of being a criminal for doing so (and this is coming from someone who uses the railways a fair amount, has a half decent knowledge of such things etc - imagine if it was an old granny, or someone like my girlfriend who is very shy and doesn't like confrontation with strangers).

In terms of the actual thread - yep, I've seen it around Cardiff too. ATW have put in barriers in quite a few places over the last few years though, so it is occurring less and less.

The issue here is that the passenger did not reveal the ACTUAL journey that they were making. HAD they stated that they had travelled from station B but wished to purchase a ticket to return to station B then there would have been absolutely NO problem. No-one is disputing the ability to buy a ticket and start short. What IS in question is the fact that the pasenger was actually STATING by request a journey for which they could not have started either without paying for the ticket or having a voucher or some other form of evidence as having started from there. This immediate;ly places the honesty of the passenger in question. I am sorry if you disagree but the member of staff can only act on what has been stated. in this case the statement was incorrect and the passenger could not have undertaken the journey they were requesting a ticket for.

The reason he didn't have a ticket is because there were no facilities at his starting station. A lot of tickets allow you to start short; why should a passenger be disadvantaged in this regard simply because the TOC failed to provide adequate facilities? If I turn up at such a station I expect to have available to me all the tickets that would be available had the station had ticket issuing facilities.

As far as I'm concerned all I have to do is tell the clerk is the ticket I require, and as long as it's valid for the journey I wish to make that's all they need to know.

So what happens when a passenger turns up and requests a ticket from a station which has been closed off by the Revenue Protection, thereby meaning that the passenger did not travel from THAT station ?

The request fitted into the standard fare evasion scenario, and I am sorry if that does not please you but it is a fact that people do try to travel and pay short fare.

What I said is that it is better for a passenger to be completely honest and truthful as to their journey. Had the person explained this at the excess office window then the member of staff would have understood.

The journey being undertaken is Headingley to Leeds (and a return) they are however starting short at Burley Park (as permitted by condition 16 of the NRCoC).

THat is not in dispute and I never stated it was. My points about this are made above.

However as far as the 1889 Act is concerned the fare is payable from the starting station. That the Railway chooses to issue a return ticket is well established but if the Guard considers intent (and this is suggested by the actions of the passenger in not stating their actual journey) then the fare payable becomes that for the journey being undertaken. A return ticket would only be issued on the return portion and then would be a free excess. On the outward journey a free excess to destination would be issued.

 

[Bungle73]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So what happens when a passenger turns up and requests a ticket from a station which has been closed off by the Revenue Protection, thereby meaning that the passenger did not travel from THAT station ?

The request fitted into the standard fare evasion scenario, and I am sorry if that does not please you but it is a fact that people do try to travel and pay short fare.

What I said is that it is better for a passenger to be completely honest and truthful as to their journey. Had the person explained this at the excess office window then the member of staff would have understood.

The passenger was honest and truthful. He knew which ticket he required (one that was valid for the journey he was making), and that's what he asked for. Or are you saying every time I go to the ticket office I've got to run through my entire itinerary even though I already know exactly what ticket I require?

 

[nedchester]

The passenger was hotest and truthful. He knew which ticket he required (one that was valid for the journey he was making), and that's what he asked for. Or are you saying every time I go to the ticket office I've got to run through my entire itinerary even though I already know exactly what ticket I require?

Seems you have to answer the questions in the right order or you are banged to rights!!! It seems that innocent people are being penalised for asking for a legitimate ticket.

I must say that it is about time that a 120 year old act was updated for the 21st century.

 

[Old Timer]

The passenger was hotest and truthful.

INCORRECT

The passenger stated that they wanted a return ticket from station A, which was equipped with full ticket issuing facilities, and on this occasion was the subject of a revenue protection exercise. When challenged that they could NOT have travelled from station A the passenger then says actually they travelled from Station B.

This now places into question the veracity of the passenger in the same way that a response in any other similar scenario would raise a question.

The passenger was actually travelling from station B and intending to return to station A this was the reason that they were requesting the ticket, and they should have stated this, not least because it would explain satisfactorily the ebsence of a ticket, whereas the original question did not.

Unfortunately we do not know exactly what was said, but if the response of the member of staff WAS as stated then they are certainly less than adequate in the job. The correct response should have bneen to ask where the passenger had started from WITHOUT revealing why. Had the answer been station A the you have intent. Had the response been station B then this would have been an acceptable response.

The question remains however that the passenger could have started at any point beyond station A and still be offering a short fare from station A without knowledge of the ticket checks in place. These things do happen every day.

Seems you have to answer the questions in the right order or you are banged to rights!!! It seems that innocent people are being penalised for asking for a legitimate ticket.

I must say that it is about time that a 120 year old act was updated for the 21st century.

Not an interprtetation I would make.

Firstly the NCoC require a passenger to obtain a valid ticket before starting their journey where the facilities are available. The facilities were available at the station from which the passenger stated they were travelling. Requesting a ticket from station A is in effect a declaration that they travelled from station A. Now as station A has full ticket facilities the question must be WHY ???

As I have been at pains to point out, but people simply ignore, is the fact that the correct information was not given. Had a proper explanation been given then therw ould be no problem.

Now please read S5 of the 1889 Act and tell me how you would change it
to make it simpler - which apparantly is what everyone wants these days.

How would you ensure that there was a correct balance to protect the Railway against fare evasion ? Would it be based upon what Nedchesters views are, or would it be a more "scientific" how simple would that be in comparison ?

 

[p123]

I see this all the time in Glasgow.

What is particularly annoying about it, is a lot of these people get on at staffed stations and are almost 'chancing' it when they only need a single ticket.

Obviously because of the barriers at Glasgow stations they now have to buy a ticket to get out of the stations in the city centre, but it's amazing whenever I get off the train at Queen St/Central the sheer volume of people who apparantly got on the train at 'Exhibition Centre', 'Partick' or 'Hyndland'.

 

[Bungle73]

INCORRECT

Rubbish.

The passenger stated that they wanted a return ticket from station A, which was equipped with full ticket issuing facilities, and on this occasion was the subject of a revenue protection exercise. When challenged that they could NOT have travelled from station A the passenger then says actually they travelled from Station B.

This now places into question the veracity of the passenger in the same way that a response in any other similar scenario would raise a question.

The passenger was actually travelling from station B and intending to return to station A this was the reason that they were requesting the ticket, and they should have stated this, not least because it would explain satisfactorily the ebsence of a ticket, whereas the original question did not.

Unfortunately we do not know exactly what was said, but if the response of the member of staff WAS as stated then they are certainly less than adequate in the job. The correct response should have bneen to ask where the passenger had started from WITHOUT revealing why. Had the answer been station A the you have intent. Had the response been station B then this would have been an acceptable response.

The question remains however that the passenger could have started at any point beyond station A and still be offering a short fare from station A without knowledge of the ticket checks in place. These things do happen every day.

Why should he have stated that? All the clerk needs to know is the ticket required. The one asked for was valid. That should be end of it as far as I'm concerned.

It seems to me you're just trying to find ways to trip up unsuspecting passengers.

Not an interprtetation I would make.

Firstly the NCoC require a passenger to obtain a valid ticket before starting their journey where the facilities are available. The facilities were available at the station from which the passenger stated they were travelling. Requesting a ticket from station A is in effect a declaration that they travelled from station A. Now as station A has full ticket facilities the question must be WHY ???

As I have been at pains to point out, but people simply ignore, is the fact that the correct information was not given. Had a proper explanation been given then therw ould be no problem.

Now please read S5 of the 1889 Act and tell me how you would change it
to make it simpler - which apparantly is what everyone wants these days.

How would you ensure that there was a correct balance to protect the Railway against fare evasion ? Would it be based upon what Nedchesters views are, or would it be a more "scientific" how simple would that be in comparison ?

He didn't say he started his journey at A, he just requested a ticket from A. The NRCoC allow buying a ticket and starting short, therefore he did nothing wrong.