Complex Penalty Fare

[AndyLandy]

Condition 19c merely states that the entire journey needs to be covered and that one ticket should be a season and the other(s) not. Both stipulations were met.

Does 19c feature heavily in these scenarios? Or do you equally find usable fares without needing a season ticket?

 

[RJ]

Condition 19c doesn't always feature. Sometimes, such as in the case of the Hertford to Beford ticket, I have to take a train that stops at the station where I change anyway so it's not an issue. Recently, I have found that I can comport my affairs in London without needing to use a season ticket, so I have moved away from split ticketing altogether and focused on tickets that are valid on their own. I did have some of these noted down from months ago but rarely use them as they're mostly (but not all) National Routeing Guide permitted route based anomalies, which are significantly more difficult to explain.

 

[Robsignals]

In the beginning tickets must have been really simple but then an anomaly needed correcting, then another until by logical progression we arrive at the current situation which can be described as a genuine attempt at the best possible system! One change that could be made is split tickets only being valid if the changeover station is an origin OR destination on BOTH tickets, eg London - Bedford and Bedford - Leicester say. Not sure how that would work with Season Tickets, might just require trains to call at the changeover station in all cases.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

CrossCountry have done something like this. No matter where you start your journey, it's not off-peak until 0930. So, if you're heading North from Southampton, you'd have to wait until 0946 for the first off-peak train, so can't reach Birmingham before noon. Conversely, you can get an 0930 to London and be there before 11am on an off-peak ticket. Clearly this isn't what the system is meant to be achieving, and it opens the door to encourage even more split ticketing....

And the first XC train out of Manchester Piccadilly after 0930 is at 1027.

TPE also did some 'tidying' of restrictions not so very long ago, a passenger who buys tickets from me saw a rise of £3 on her daily fare (a near 25% rise) because the restriction on a Manchester-Huddersfield Off-Peak ticket changed from "Not valid on trains that are scheduled to arrive in Leeds before 0930" to "Not valid before 0830".

 

[neilmc]

And the first XC train out of Manchester Piccadilly after 0930 is at 1027.

TPE also did some 'tidying' of restrictions not so very long ago, a passenger who buys tickets from me saw a rise of £3 on her daily fare (a near 25% rise) because the restriction on a Manchester-Huddersfield Off-Peak ticket changed from "Not valid on trains that are scheduled to arrive in Leeds before 0930" to "Not valid before 0830".

True, but the 0927 out of Manchester stops at Stockport at 0935 from where an off-peak ticket would be valid. But of course you have to discern that in the first place.

 

[BestWestern]

So you would remove all super off-peak tickets and increase the price paid by people who use them? And offer period return tickets for short journeys where they would be used again and again by fraudulent travellers? Make someone from south-east London unable to get to Manchester off-peak until lunchtime? Those are just three issues, but isn't the aim to improve the railway service, rather than bankrupt it?

The 'aim' is to remove the ludicrous system which is currently in place. The above are suggestions, around which a better system could be constructed. The issue you raise with 'Super Off Peak' is a valid point, however these are just the sort of tickets which frequently confuse the hell out of people who then end up being charged by often unsympathetic Guards/revenue staff, who know the conditions inside out but fail to appreciate that many casual users don't (or know it very well but chose to profit from it). These sort of tickets may offer benefits, but they also cause much confusion. Nobody who has legitimately bought a valid rail ticket should have to spend their time hunting around for details of when and where their ticket will be valid when they come home later on. Ask anybody who works the trains most affected by these fares, they will tell you that people travelling on the wrong train, blissfully unaware of their 'offence' - as well as those who know full well of course - are a daily occurrence. Perhaps there is scope for TOC's to offer these as some form of 'enhanced' Off Peak fares somehow, but whatever is or isn't done it needs to be much, much clearer.

As for local tickets with extended validity, the type of fraudulent travellers you mention are unlikely to use them 'again and again'; if they regularly travel without seeing a Guard to stamp their ticket and through stations with no barriers, then the chances are they buy no ticket at all; and believe me most of them are too dim to ask for anything other than the instinctive "Single to the next stop", even if they might benefit from a return. There are obviously potential issues, and these would need to be examined. However, there are a great many passengers who are not at all impressed that they could have bought a day return for pennies more than the single - literally ten pence or so in many cases - but if they want to come back the next day it will cost them twice as much as they require two singles.

There are a thousand different ways that TOC's could change ticketing practices, some good and some bad. Whatever you do will never please everybody, but there is no doubt that what is required is simplicity, and the current system simply doesn't offer that.

 

[calc7]

And the first XC train out of Manchester Piccadilly after 0930 is at 1027.

What about the 1007 Bristol?

TPE also did some 'tidying' of restrictions not so very long ago, a passenger who buys tickets from me saw a rise of £3 on her daily fare (a near 25% rise) because the restriction on a Manchester-Huddersfield Off-Peak ticket changed from "Not valid on trains that are scheduled to arrive in Leeds before 0930" to "Not valid before 0830".

I wonder - did Northern campaign for this? I believe it leaves TPE corridor restrictions unchanged as the 0827 out of Manchester would have been barred before and still is as it arrives in Leeds before 0930; whereas the 0842 Hull service remains allowable.

Of course, if one is buying from the Manchester cluster for travel to Piccadilly then onwards, it does mean you either have a later arrival or fork out more.

 

[Paul Kelly]

I wonder - did Northern campaign for this?

I seem to remember somebody implying it was done because booking engines and journey planners were having trouble interpreting the "not valid on services scheduled to arrive xxxx before yyyy" type of wording.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

What about the 1007 Bristol?

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that one (I had a feeling there was another).

....I wonder - did Northern campaign for this? I believe it leaves TPE corridor restrictions unchanged as the 0827 out of Manchester would have been barred before and still is as it arrives in Leeds before 0930; whereas the 0842 Hull service remains allowable....

Given that it saw a change to the vast majority of restriction for little benefit, I doubt it.

 

[PR1Berske]

True, but the 0927 out of Manchester stops at Stockport at 0935 from where an off-peak ticket would be valid. But of course you have to discern that in the first place.

And when things get so complex (not to mention so reliant on passengers being "in the know"), it's little wonder why passengers get the wrong tickets, or get over charged, or don't bother with a ticket in the first place!

The industry could simplify tickets. But it won't, ever, because the industry needs to make a profit. Doing that from forcing customers through the most expensive corridors is in the industry's interests.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

And when things get so complex (not to mention so reliant on passengers being "in the know"), it's little wonder why passengers get the wrong tickets, or get over charged, or don't bother with a ticket in the first place!

The industry could simplify tickets. But it won't, ever, because the industry needs to make a profit. Doing that from forcing customers through the most expensive corridors is in the industry's interests.

The grass is always greener on the other side......

 

[AndyLandy]

The industry could simplify tickets. But it won't, ever, because the industry needs to make a profit. Doing that from forcing customers through the most expensive corridors is in the industry's interests.

I don't believe that blatant profiteering is the motive at all. In fact, I suspect the majority of weird price discrepancies come from the fact that ticketing is simple in some places, specifically at the point of purchase.

The peak vs. offpeak problems exist because we have a common ticketing system that will sell you a ticket from Woking to London Waterloo, or one from Thurso to Falmouth Docks. You could remove that complexity by segregating commuter and Intercity train fares, but you'd end up adding a whole bunch of different complexity. Not to mention how you'd work out where to draw the line. Maybe you'd need more than two types of fare.

The easements and routeing choices exist to make fares fairer and to work around the fact that the rail system is an incredibly complex network.

And as I've said before. If there was an obvious way of simplifying fares, we'd have done it already.

 

[Donny Dave]

The easements and routeing choices exist to make fares fairer and to work around the fact that the rail system is an incredibly complex network.

That's how easements should work. In reality however, the "easements" make for more expensive journeys for those who are unlucky enough to not live on a mainline ....

 

[RJ]

Sounds like you have a good case to go to the Information Commissioner with.

I will now be following up the CCTV incident. Developments since I received the last email have left me unsatisfied with the way the request was dealt with.

In the meantime, I travelled from St Pancras to Sheffield yesterday. This time, there was a fare dispute which started at around Hendon and continued until well beyond Bedford. Everything that needed to be explained was explained to the TM, but he decided to disregard the relevance of certain documents and gave the option of paying for a brand new ticket, or having the police come to meet the train at Leicester. Needless to say, I wasn't going to entertain either option. Ultimately, the TM was given no choice but to pass the ticket and he reluctantly dropped the matter.

However, the RPO who issued me with the Penalty Fare this thread pertains to just so happened to board the train at Leicester. She was talking to the staff on the train who were involved in inspecting my ticket for some time. I may be being paranoid here, but I wonder if anything about me was mentioned, because the RPO came through the carriage I was sitting in with the snacks trolley. I may have been convinced she was merely helping out if the train wasn't already overrun with catering staff. When the trolley came, the RPO probably saw my face, because she did a U-turn and I didn't see her again.

My commute restarts next week and I have discovered some brand new tickets which I will be buying. I'm not surprised that the East Midlands Trains retail department have completely removed a number of Not Via London tickets from sale, some of which I used to use but there you go!

 

[bakerstreet]

I'm not surprised that the East Midlands Trains retail department have completely removed a number of Not Via London tickets from sale, some of which I used to use but there you go!

Err. can they do this, just like that?!

If train companies can change available routeings just like that there'll be chaos.

And just because RJ's hacked them off!

Surely via London / not via London etc etc must be protected?

 

[bb21]

If it is not a protected flow then the routing is not protected. Not all Route Via London and Route Not Via London fares are protected.

 

[RJ]

The Bishops Stortford to Nottingham Not Via London fare is a protected flow and EMT who price the flow, changed the route to Via Ely with effect from the 2nd January 2013. If a fare is protected and they can just change it at their whim, the concept is entirely superfluous.

Err. can they do this, just like that?!

If train companies can change available routeings just like that there'll be chaos.

And just because RJ's hacked them off!

Surely via London / not via London etc etc must be protected?

Apparently, they can!

 

[All Line Rover]

If train companies can change available routeings just like that there'll be chaos.

There isn't 'chaos' if a TOC changes the route of a ticket used by a minority of people to a route which all in that minority bar one were already taking. Only a handful of people each year must be buying 'not via London' / 'via Ely' tickets between the Bishops Stortford area and Derby/Nottingham that RJ was using up the MML, and I would bet that all of those people already use such tickets via Ely.

Passenger Watchdogs such as Passenger Focus are not interested in ensuring that anomalous tickets never intended to be used via London, remain valid via London. Do you honestly think Passenger Focus are going to email the DfT with something along these lines?... "We object to EMT changing the routeing of the £57 Bishops Stortford to Nottingham 'not via London' SVR to 'via Ely,' and the restriction code from one which is valid at any time to one which is only valid after 09:00 (which falls well within fares regulation), because passengers who were using this ticket to travel between West Hampstead and Derby along the MML instead of paying £183 for an SOR are no longer able to do so."

On the other hand, there would be 'chaos' and Passenger Focus would be interested if XC changed the routeing of a Manchester to Reading 'Any Permitted' ticket to 'not via London' because of some backhanded exchange between the XC and VT pricing managers. Why? Because this ticket was always intended to be valid via London, there are many passengers who use this ticket via London would be disadvantaged by the change, and Passenger Focus would likely agree that one TOC raising its prices to astronomical levels (i.e. VT) does not justify another TOC altering its pricing structure.

 

[LexyBoy]

On the other hand, there would be 'chaos' and Passenger Focus would be interested if XC changed the routeing of a Manchester to Reading 'Any Permitted' ticket to 'not via London' because of some backhanded exchange between the XC and VT pricing managers. Why? Because this ticket was always intended to be valid via London, there are many passengers who use this ticket via London would be disadvantaged by the change, and Passenger Focus would likely agree that one TOC raising its prices to astronomical levels (i.e. VT) does not justify another TOC altering its pricing structure.

Are there really many people who use this ticket via London? I wonder how they came to the conclusion that this is a permitted route, as booking engines and NRE all show that it is not valid via London. Do Virgin staff accept such tickets via London?

I doubt there would be "chaos". A small number of people would be up in arms, Passenger Focus would send a note to ATOC and/or DafT stating that this is unacceptable, and then nothing would happen.

I could write to the BBC with an easy way to get a half-price Anytime ticket between London and Manchester, I'm sure that a bit of publicity - or at the least hordes of execs trudging up to Salford - would see the routeing changed

 

[RJ]

I travelled on EMT yesterday evening (after 6pm.) First day of commuting after resting over Christmas. I was issued with a UFN for over £75.

I was using the outward portion of an Online Only SVR to Seaforth and Litherland dated the 6th January. I was travelling under the overnight break of journey rule. I tried to explain to her that the ticket ceases to be valid after 04:29 on the third day, but she wasn't listening. I asked her what passengers should do if they can only travel a certain distance before there are no services to take them further until the next day. She said they would have to buy a new ticket as its their responsibility to complete their journey by 02:00 the morning after the expiry date shown on the ticket.

By this point I could tell that this TM was rude and the type who wasn't interested in a word I had to say so I decided to humour her, already knowing that she was going to issue me with a UFN. I decided to let the matter of the first ticket go by producing the return portion of a very similar ticket that expires later this month. This time, she took exception to the route I was using. The ticket was routed Any Permitted. She asked me where Rice Lane was. I said "I don't know, but I what I know is that this ticket is valid for the journey I am undertaking." She called an unspecified ticket office for a second opinion on both tickets. They didn't know what they were on about either with respect to overnight break of journeys or the routing. She did ask for the return portion of the first ticket, as if she wanted to try and catch me out on that but I had it to hand. She maintained that the price of the ticket didn't look right.

Me: "The only time price alone determines validity is when you are considering railcard minimum fares or comparing to single fares for the purpose of determining an appropriate routing point. Are you comparing single fares for the purpose of determining an appropriate routing point?"

TM: No.

Me: "So let's stop talking about the price of the ticket then."

I asked her if she knew about the National Routeing Guide. She said yes. I asked if she knew how to use it. She said yes. So when she told me to show her how the route I was taking could possibly be permitted given the price of the ticket, I took out my laptop, opened up the Permitted Routes document and showed her the permitted route maps. She said something along the lines of "I don't know what that is, but it's nothing to do with what we're talking about." I tried to level with her and said that I had worked for the railways, in the ticket office and in revenue protection and admitted that I was interested in tickets and knew all this because I went above and beyond what was generally required. She sarcastically said "you've done a lot of things" as if to suggest that I was lying about having worked for the railways.

Anyway, so after we deduced that there was no chance of the TM letting the matter go, I asked what next. She said that she would have no choice but to "fine me." She asked for my name and address and I asked her to justify why I should give them to her. After all, a member of staff can only request those details if they have reasonable suspicion that a passenger has committed an offence. She confidently stated that she was 100% sure I had broken a byelaw by failing to show her a valid ticket. She asked me if I had any I.D. I declined to produce any and she demanded to know what I had inside my ticket wallet, as if that was any of her business. I had my driving licence but I don't see why I should make it easy for these TMs who are abusing their authority by committing me to a debt I'm categorically not liable to pay.

I wrote my name and address on a bit of paper (actively refusing to give my date of birth) and she rang the IRCAS helpdesk to verify my details. Whilst on the phone to them, she disappeared then returned with a Unpaid Fare Notice (incorrectly) filled out. I asked her why she didn't give me the opportunity to pay any of it. I was going to tender a penny. She lied to my face and said that part payments could not be accepted. I countered this by pointing to the "Amount owing" and "Amount received" fields and asking why else the form would have those fields. She decided she didn't want that conversation and told me to sign it. I told her I wasn't signing anything that implied I travelled without a valid ticket, so she tore off the white copy, handed it to me and stormed off without a further word.

The rate at which these Train Managers/Revenue Protection staff have not filled out a UFN or PFN correctly and I have had quite a lot of them now, is 100%. After I see how lax IRCAS are with Data Protection, I'm refusing to deal with them, or their Appeals department who have demonstrated time and time again that they don't know how to determine whether or not a ticket is valid. They can send me threatening letters to their heart's content and submit their MG11 once they get bored of that. The only thing that is most likely guaranteed if I waste my time arguing with the back office staff now, is that any loophole I might have used will be shut, so I'm not going to bother.

In the meantime, I purchased 8 weeks worth of these tickets in one go as they were on special offer (all with various origins/destinations of course ) so plenty of fun and games to look forward to.

 

[WillPS]

Good on you, RJ.

On the tendering a penny thing - wouldn't doing so imply you had accepted the need for payment?

I don't see how they can pretend the UPFN means anything if it isn't signed - it'd be like trying to cash an unsigned cheque.

 

[Ferret]

RJ, you imply by saying you'll ignore their correspondence, that you'll be prepared to go to Court this time?

 

[RJ]

WillPS: It's just something that I do because of what I was taught when working for the railways. I usually like to pay for these new tickets on the train with a big wad of Rail Travel Vouchers before complaining to Customer Relations, but I didn't have any to hand. As for not signing it, that's academic. If a passenger has committed an offence and provided their name and address, the matter can still be chased up. If there is insufficient paperwork to support a prosecution, the debt can still be collected through use of bailiffs.

Ferret: It is unlikely to get that far because the Prosecution Manager already knows what I'm all about and is up on the history/propensity for ATOC to surprise the company by confirming that I was in the right all along. However, where needs must and all that. IRCAS and the whole appeals system are a waste of my time.

 

[sheff1]

I travelled on EMT yesterday ....

..... The rate at which these Train Managers/Revenue Protection staff have not filled out a UFN or PFN correctly and I have had quite a lot of them now, is 100%.

Why does that not surprise me. Throughout EMT there seems to be a culture that 'the rules' do not apply to them or can be ignored with impunity*. I have been told by EMT that the NRCoC no longer apply and that the Routeing Guide does not exist. At Sheffield they consistently ignore the Penalty Fare guidelines concerning signage and announcements.

* With regards to railway specific matters they are probably right, as the Regulator and Passenger Focus seemed unconcerned. When it come to Data Protection, though, the Information Commisioner in my experience is much more effective in using the powers available to hold large companies to account. I would hope that if you do raise a complaint with them they will take it very seriously.

 

[RJ]

I gave the TM plenty of opportunity to behave in a reasonable manner. I tried to empathise with her by stating that I worked with tickets and understood that rules are always changing and it is possible that rules exist that she might never have had a reason to encounter in the past. However, she had made up her mind and there was nothing I could say - she assumed I was lying.

Nobody bothers feeding back to the TMs after I complain - that much is clear from my experience over the last 15 months. However, they will take complaints against staff more seriously if one takes action that compels them to. There is an art to complaining after all.

In the meantime, I have become unsatisfied with the way my request for that CCTV was handled. I have a suspicion that negligence and dithering until after the CCTV was overwritten was the reason behind their inability to provide me with it and have evidence to support this. EMT reckon it was because I took too long to pay them, which is not true. At that point, I dismissed it and was prepared to let it go, because they hadn't cashed the cheque. A week later, the cheque was cashed. Whilst I know full well that they have a legal right to retain the fee even if they could not retrieve the CCTV, I decided that they were taking the p*ss.

I have given EMT the option of settling this dispute amicably, or me going by the book and letting the Information Commissioner deal with it. I just want my £10 back but if they are going to be difficult about it, I'll forward the evidence I have on and let the ICO do their thing.

 

[RJ]

I received an email from EMT's security department after 9pm last night. It was marked as "high importance." The upshot is, they found the CCTV footage I was after in relation to the issue of this Penalty Fare and will be posting it out to me at the first opportunity.

The previous email I received from them regarding this matter was on the 7th December 2012.

In relation to your request for CCTV footage from [location removed]
on [date removed], the footage had been overwritten by the time the request
was received. Unfortunately due to the delay in waiting for the new
cheque the footage was no longer available. As such we are not able to
provide footage in any format that relates to your request.

I knew this was rubbish but let it go for the sole reason that at that point, they had not cashed the cheque. Last week, I found that they cashed the cheque I sent them so I decided to launch my own personal investigation into the matter. When I found out what I needed to know, I wrote back to them on Tuesday.

So in this email yesterday evening, some story was given about how the disk containing the footage was sitting on someone's desk all along, but some internal confusion meant it wasn't known that it was for me. I also received an apology for the aforementioned email leading me to believe that I was at fault in any way for the footage not being obtained. Supposedly, that was not their intention.

I'm not sure if these people think I was born yesterday or something. As the little man, I don't stand for malignant treatment from companies I have paid for a service.

I said it in post #17 back in November and i'm going to say it again! I see no excuse for sloppy and inaccurate paperwork! Especially when it has the potential to end up in court.

I hope that the prosecutions department will speak constructively with the TM involved as well. I do find it frustrating that you consistently highlight the poor staff training highlighted by your exploits. While I have sympathies with staff due to the sheer number of routeings/fares available and that they can't be expected to know them all, I really do believe that if they are in any doubt they shouldn't issue a UFN. Maybe this TM wasn't in any doubnt though?

The biggest concern still has to be the personal details given out without the member of staff identifying themselves (not the fault of EMT though obviously) when you see recent news of journalists and the like 'blagging' details...

She was in no doubt that she thought I deserved to be stung for a new ticket. As for the ticketing matter, I know for a fact that I told her what was correct and provided enough information for her to be able to conclude that I was correct. This was over and above my obligations as the passenger (all of which I had met) and she chose not to listen to me. I also told her that issuing the notice would be more trouble than it was worth, but she seemed more than willing to accept that. Fair play - the TOC very promptly cancelled the Unpaid Fare Notice to their credit, but the matter is only just beginning as far as I'm concerned.

In the meantime, I feel very uncomfortable with the IRCAS. My experience with their appeals department leaves a lot to be desired as well. I feel so uncomfortable with dealing with them that I will now avoid being issued with any notices at all costs. Consequently, I have amassed a certain amount in Travellers Cheques, Postal Orders and vouchers and will use these to pay for new tickets that on board staff incorrectly feel that they are ok to sting me for.

 

[bb21]

Consequently, I have amassed a certain amount in Travellers Cheques, Postal Orders and vouchers and will use these to pay for new tickets that on board staff incorrectly feel that they are ok to sting me for.

While I am 100% behind you in your ticketing disputes with the company, part of me feels that this will do nothing but reinforce the view with onboard staff that you are setting out deliberately to be difficult, especially when coupled with awkward ticket combinations. This is not to say that you are not in the right, just that it does not help the situation.

I could be wrong, however I do not believe many people use these two forms of payment onboard.

 

[Ferret]

As far as I'm aware, there is no obligation to accept an unpaid fares notice. You are only obliged by law to give name and address details where there is reasonable grounds for an officer of the railway to suspect an offence has been committed.

So, RJ would be well within his rights to decline to accept a UFN by not signing it. That then leaves the traincrew with two options - walk away, or write a Travel Irregularity Report (TIR). Note that calling the BTP would be a waste of time as RJ has provided his correct details and even they do not have the authority to make anyone sign a UFN, which has probably been filled out incorrectly anyway.

As an observer from another TOC, it strikes me that my fellow Guards at EMT are very poorly trained in how to deal with revenue matters. This of course isn't the fault of the individual Guards, but it does show that EMT have a serious issue to address.

 

[cuccir]

While I am 100% behind you in your ticketing disputes with the company, part of me feels that this will do nothing but reinforce the view with onboard staff that you are setting out deliberately to be difficult, especially when coupled with awkward ticket combinations. This is not to say that you are not in the right, just that it does not help the situation.

I could be wrong, however I do not believe many people use these two forms of payment onboard.

More to the point, these forms of payment are not legal tender (to be fair, most forms of payment aren't). If TOCs don't advertise that they accept these forms of payment, then you might be creating more trouble for yourself.

Of course, if you have a valid ticket I guess that it's moot whether or not you have means to pay for a new ticket, and as Ferret notes above you don't have to accept it anyway.

 

[bb21]

As far as I'm aware, there is no obligation to accept an unpaid fares notice. You are only obliged by law to give name and address details where there is reasonable grounds for an officer of the railway to suspect an offence has been committed.

So, RJ would be well within his rights to decline to accept a UFN by not signing it. That then leaves the traincrew with two options - walk away, or write a Travel Irregularity Report (TIR). Note that calling the BTP would be a waste of time as RJ has provided his correct details and even they do not have the authority to make anyone sign a UFN, which has probably been filled out incorrectly anyway.

Of course, I am not suggesting whether he should be accepting a UFN or otherwise. This is a decision for him to make himself. I am merely suggesting that offering such obscure methods of payment onboard in said circumstance can be taken the wrong way and cannot possibly be conducive to a satisfactory outcome.