Advice needed - Chiltern excess fare demand

[afyutr]

Yes. That is the effect of the rule as written. If the rule should not say that, then it should be changed.

£57.20 is not the full single fare for Southampton to Brighton route Barnham. So the rule doesn't need changing at all.

 

[island]

£57.20 is not the full single fare for Southampton to Brighton route Barnham. So the rule doesn't need changing at all.

You need to read the definition from the NRCoC again. It specifically calls out that the fare chosen should be the appropriate one to the class of travel. If the authors had also meant the fare should be the appropriate one for the route and TOC used, they would have said so.

 

[maniacmartin]

Unfortunate as it is, my opinion is that the 'full fare' is the ANY PERMITTED fare.

 

[MyFriendMary]

Is the 'Chiltern Only' option possible on the avantax? I'm nowhere near one to check :P

If it is, the Guard may have genuinely not known that he could charge the route specific option or exercised discretion to not.

 

[G0ORC]

Quite potentially he's technically correct. I don't care, I didn't realise I didn't have my railcard on me, had I done so I'd have paid for the £6.50 ticket. It's abhorrent that instead of paying £2.20 more I'm asked to pay an extra £9.10 for a ticket I'm not using.

I also object to being abused by staff on the railway. It's fine when it's me, but if that were (for instance) my mother you'd never get her on a Chiltern service again after such appalling customer service.

I don't normally contribute to the Fares section of this forum as this is not my area of expertise but I'm very motivated to do so in this case.

You have been in this industry for a maximum of 5 years, probably less, but seem very unwilling to accept the advice of those of us who have had a wealth of experience from many, many years work on the railway.

I was once advised many years ago by a signaller much wiser than me that if I made an issue of a particular incident I may win the battle but ultimately lose the war - and they were right.

At some stage in your (hopefully) long and productive railway career you may find yourself with your job under threat or indeed be made redundant in a reorganisation. It has happened to many of us during our careers.

Despite what you may think the railway (to a large extent in the operating arena anyway) is still a big family. Don't you think that TOCs, FOCs and Network Rail talk to one another? I can tell you they do (there is ample evidence of that in the "Employment" section of this forum).

One day you may need a job with another employer in this industry and when it comes to choosing who to employ then if you have come to their notice before for an incident of travelling with an invalid ticket and made a fuss about your treatment then you may find that you are not the chosen one. You may not like this fact but its reality and you must live in the real world.

Please, for the benefit of your future career take the offered advice and let this lie.

I make the Leamington to Birmingham journey regularly, so I do hope the chap turns up again so I can give him a piece of my mind.

Do not go on and abuse a member of railway staff however strongly you feel. Ultimately it could (will) cost you your career.

 

[furlong]

Unfortunate as it is, my opinion is that the 'full fare' is the ANY PERMITTED fare.

There's nothing special about an "ANY PERMITTED" routeing. In general you can't assume the "ANY PERMITTED" fare would be the highest priced single fare between two stations. If there was a higher priced single fare routed "VIA YORK" you'd surely say that was the fare to use, even if you were not travelling via York?

The term "full fare" or "standard fare" is generally used to contrast against a "discounted" or "reduced" or "saver" fare.

Tickets with routeing designations like "Any permitted" or "Via York" or "Chiltern only" are not considered "discounts" against each other. They are separate fares to which discounts can be applied.

So I'm with yorkie on this one.

 

[MichaelAMW]

There's nothing special about an "ANY PERMITTED" routeing. In general you can't assume the "ANY PERMITTED" fare would be the highest priced single fare between two stations. If there was a higher priced single fare routed "VIA YORK" you'd surely say that was the fare to use, even if you were not travelling via York?

The term "full fare" or "standard fare" is generally used to contrast against a "discounted" or "reduced" or "saver" fare.

Tickets with routeing designations like "Any permitted" or "Via York" or "Chiltern only" are not considered "discounts" against each other. They are separate fares to which discounts can be applied.

So I'm with yorkie on this one.

Me too. As I said a bit back, quoting the rules, it's the full fare for the journey being made, not the highest available fare between the two stations in question. To all intents and purposes, without the railcard the passsenger has joined the train with no ticket. Excluding the situations where either a PF is charged or there is some reason to consider some kind of prosecution, anyone on the train without a ticket would be charged the full fare appropriate to the route they were taking. Using the Southampton to Brighton example again you wouldn't be charged the Any Permitted fare for being without a ticket on a Via Barnham journey.

There might be some argument for saying that Route: Via Barnham and Route: Chiltern Only are not the same thing, i.e. saying that a TOC-specific route is not the same as a geographical route, but that still seems to me to be speculation.

 

[yorkie]

Imagine losing your Railcard on the Dailsrail train for the one stop from Clitheroe to Hellifield if the Guard had the wrong interpretation "I'm sorry sir, but that will be £28.70, as I have to charge you as if you travelled the long way round. Had you merely boarded without any ticket, you would only have had to pay £7"

Yes, the wording is sloppy, but that doesn't mean the routeing can be ignored (in the same way that the origin & destination are not ignored), and it doesn't mean common sense goes out the window

 

[tbtc]

So the OP could have been charged £6.50 (Chiltern-only ticket), could have been charged £9.10 (standard ticket) or could have been charged £20 (penalty fare)?

Talking about getting him "fired", calling him a "moron" etc suggests that the Guard may have been in a position to use discretion over which ticket to charge, and went for the middle option.

Could have been worse, could have had to pay even more, which is why I repeat my "keep your head down" advice from earlier - making veiled threats about future trips isn't helping the case.

Also worth pointing out that since anyone at Chiltern HQ could identify the Guard in question (i.e. who was working the 14:55 ex Birmingham on Sunday 16th March 2014), there's a chance of an employee being hauled in for "tea without biscuits" without having done anything wrong.

Imagine losing your Railcard on the Dailsrail train for the one stop from Clitheroe to Hellifield if the Guard had the wrong interpretation "I'm sorry sir, but that will be £28.70, as I have to charge you as if you travelled the long way round. Had you merely boarded without any ticket, you would only have had to pay £7"

I'd like to think that a Guard would have been understanding if the passenger was understanding. If the passenger tries to be clever (mentioning who he works for, trying to "excess" an invalid ticket) then maybe the Guard won't be so understanding. There's a lot of discretion, which is why I'd try to be polite if/when in the circumstances myself.

 

[island]

Imagine losing your Railcard on the Dailsrail train for the one stop from Clitheroe to Hellifield if the Guard had the wrong interpretation "I'm sorry sir, but that will be £28.70, as I have to charge you as if you travelled the long way round. Had you merely boarded without any ticket, you would only have had to pay £7"

Yes, the wording is sloppy, but that doesn't mean the routeing can be ignored (in the same way that the origin & destination are not ignored), and it doesn't mean common sense goes out the window

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I would note that the clause in question has been used to charge someone an SOR rather than an SDR, and I disagree with your example about someone being treated differently for lacking a Railcard as opposed to not having a ticket.

 

[Flamingo]

In view of the OP's attitude, I'd say they were lucky that the Guard did not get Revenue involved.

My advice to the OP is to dry your eyes princess, and stop trying to blame somebody else for your mistake.

(As an aside, given that you behaved like a knob and then tried to impress the guard with the fact you work for Network Rail (and therefore should know better/have more to lose), what do you think will be the probable outcome when one of your colleagues asks for discretion off that guard next?)

 

[afyutr]

You need to read the definition from the NRCoC again. It specifically calls out that the fare chosen should be the appropriate one to the class of travel. If the authors had also meant the fare should be the appropriate one for the route and TOC used, they would have said so.

I've really confused myself with this, as upon checking the NRCoC the paragraphs don't match what was in the post above that's initially responded to. It actually says nothing about what should happen if you don't carry your railcard (14 - just that you should have it) and certainly says nothing about the 'highest available fare', just the 'full single'.

Just to check - when was the last update? NRE's website is giving me NRCoC updated in May 2012.

It's interpretation really - as the travel was clearly 'via XXX/ XXX only' then in my opinion the full single should also be 'via XXX / XXX only'. Otherwise it's a different ticket completely.

 

[Anvil1984]

I've really confused myself with this, as upon checking the NRCoC the paragraphs don't match what was in the post above that's initially responded to. It actually says nothing about what should happen if you don't carry your railcard (14 - just that you should have it) and certainly says nothing about the 'highest available fare', just the 'full single'.

Just to check - when was the last update? NRE's website is giving me NRCoC updated in May 2012.

It's interpretation really - as the travel was clearly 'via XXX/ XXX only' then in my opinion the full single should also be 'via XXX / XXX only'. Otherwise it's a different ticket completely.

The paragraph in question is. On page 6 of May 2012 NrCoC just above section 3

 

[afyutr]

So it does, found them both now, what a (didn't know that was a swear word). Thanks.

 

[Crossover]

removed

Well it would seem the OP has realised the mistake made in their OP...

 

[yorkie]

I think we'll leave it there.

If anyone wants a thread removing, you need to contact us by use of the reporting system and we will consider the request.