Cutting your fare short

[island]

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.

In theory a passenger requiring a ticket which the TVM does not sell should buy a single to his first change point or destination, and part-exchange it later. But that does not of course apply when the machine doesn't accept all payment types.

 

[aleph_0]

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 ?

So far the passenger hadn't claimed they had come from station A, only that they required a ticket from that station. One should be cautious, but one hasn't enough information yet.

Instead of revealing the fact that a block is in place, politely ask the passenger where they have traveled from. Could be done quite subtly I expect (the direct question seems rather subtle, confirming the station, and not taking much extra time, but one could also make it as part of the routine a few days before the block takes place). Give the passenger enough rope. The passenger probably won't change their story, and if they do, they then risk doing it the wrong way. For example, a block is on at Burley park, but the passenger decides to try Headingley, since Burley Park is more usually blocked:

Passenger: Can I have a ticket from Headingley please?
You: Where did you get on?
Passenger: Actually, I got on at Burley Park.
You: But there's a block on at Burley Park.
Fare evader (was Passenger): Oh Darn! I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!"

Letting the passenger know there is a block on, without them first having confirmed their starting station seems silly. This gives evaders more room to make excuses, and implicitly accuses legitimate customers (the Burley Park example above, or a customer might have another ticket covering part of the journey, but today wishes to travel into the centre instead).

There is a balance to be struck. When I'm purchasing a ticket (although usually before travel) I usually just ask for the ticket I need, rather than provide my whole itinerary. If staff ask for exact details of my intended journey, I will of course be happy to provide them. This seems the best way to communicate things, since my plan is usually then obvious from context. Indeed, previously, when I've given full details of my intentions, I've often found that staff just wish to know what tickets I want (usually because they are then clever enough to fill in the gaps).

 

[Old Timer]

Rubbish.



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.




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.

The NCoC requires a ticket to be bought before starting the journey from a station. He could NOT have done so from the station that he travelled from.

There is a whole different scenario when you arrive at destination without a ticket when there are facilities at the starting station.

For the xth time I really do not see why there is such a big issue in a passenger telling the TRUTH about their journey, and why there is such a clamour to defend not doing that.

An explanation has to be offered to a member of staff when arriving at a station without a ticket. If they are not happy with the explanation then the matter is reported.....simples.

So far the passenger hadn't claimed they had come from station A, only that they required a ticket from that station. One should be cautious, but one hasn't enough information yet.

Instead of revealing the fact that a block is in place, politely ask the passenger where they have traveled from. Could be done quite subtly I expect (the direct question seems rather subtle, confirming the station, and not taking much extra time, but one could also make it as part of the routine a few days before the block takes place). Give the passenger enough rope. The passenger probably won't change their story, and if they do, they then risk doing it the wrong way. For example, a block is on at Burley park, but the passenger decides to try Headingley, since Burley Park is more usually blocked:


Letting the passenger know there is a block on, without them first having confirmed their starting station seems silly. This gives evaders more room to make excuses, and implicitly accuses legitimate customers (the Burley Park example above, or a customer might have another ticket covering part of the journey, but today wishes to travel into the centre instead).

There is a balance to be struck. When I'm purchasing a ticket (although usually before travel) I usually just ask for the ticket I need, rather than provide my whole itinerary. If staff ask for exact details of my intended journey, I will of course be happy to provide them. This seems the best way to communicate things, since my plan is usually then obvious from context. Indeed, previously, when I've given full details of my intentions, I've often found that staff just wish to know what tickets I want (usually because they are then clever enough to fill in the gaps).

One of the more sensible posts on here.

I agree entirely that if the member of staff said what they said then that was a stupid course to take.

A proper question should have been to ask the pertinent question as you rightly say.

In such cases where I have started off from station B but intend to return to station A then I clearly explain this, its concise, takes no longer and prevents anyone forming a suspicion as to what I am up to.

 

[RJ]

So far the passenger hadn't claimed they had come from station A, only that they required a ticket from that station. One should be cautious, but one hasn't enough information yet.

Instead of revealing the fact that a block is in place, politely ask the passenger where they have traveled from. Could be done quite subtly I expect (the direct question seems rather subtle, confirming the station, and not taking much extra time, but one could also make it as part of the routine a few days before the block takes place). Give the passenger enough rope. The passenger probably won't change their story, and if they do, they then risk doing it the wrong way. For example, a block is on at Burley park, but the passenger decides to try Headingley, since Burley Park is more usually blocked:


Letting the passenger know there is a block on, without them first having confirmed their starting station seems silly. This gives evaders more room to make excuses, and implicitly accuses legitimate customers (the Burley Park example above, or a customer might have another ticket covering part of the journey, but today wishes to travel into the centre instead).

There is a balance to be struck. When I'm purchasing a ticket (although usually before travel) I usually just ask for the ticket I need, rather than provide my whole itinerary. If staff ask for exact details of my intended journey, I will of course be happy to provide them. This seems the best way to communicate things, since my plan is usually then obvious from context. Indeed, previously, when I've given full details of my intentions, I've often found that staff just wish to know what tickets I want (usually because they are then clever enough to fill in the gaps).

If a passenger if honest and straightforward then there will be no holes to pick in their story. A good RP member of staff will be smart enough to understand the rules and determine whether or not someone is fibbing. There is more to the job than simply understanding tickets, contrary to what some on here seem to believe.

 

[Bungle73]

The NCoC requires a ticket to be bought before starting the journey from a station. He could NOT have done so from the station that he travelled from.

There is a whole different scenario when you arrive at destination without a ticket when there are facilities at the starting station.

For the xth time I really do not see why there is such a big issue in a passenger telling the TRUTH about their journey, and why there is such a clamour to defend not doing that.

An explanation has to be offered to a member of staff when arriving at a station without a ticket. If they are not happy with the explanation then the matter is reported.....simples.

He did tell the truth FFS. Show me where he lied about anything????

This is what ****es people off. Railway employees who go out of their way to try and trip up unsuspecting passengers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[MikeWh]

Old Timer: Please take a minute to re-read the original post in this part of the discussion. Then you will see by Bungle and others are getting frustrated with you.

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.

 

[LondonJohn]

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 cannot understand why people do this for in some cases just a few £££.

All trains and stations have CCTV installed and it won't take much for the footage to be viewed to proove where a person got on the train.

In the event of a person getting on a xxx station and asking for a ticket from y station you don't know if they had a season ticket for travel from x to y so I wouldn't interevene. Thats down to the TOC to determine if fares have been evaded or not.

 

[benk1342]

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.

If this is true, then my set of carnets that just say "CARNET X" under "Price" are illegal tickets. I'll be sure to have a word with the staff at King's Cross about it.

 

[yorkie]

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 cannot understand why people do this for in some cases just a few £££.

All trains and stations have CCTV installed and it won't take much for the footage to be viewed to proove where a person got on the train.

In the event of a person getting on a xxx station and asking for a ticket from y station you don't know if they had a season ticket for travel from x to y so I wouldn't interevene. Thats down to the TOC to determine if fares have been evaded or not.

I think you are confused! Re-read the post, and you may want to look at a map/timetable/LDB if you are not familiar with where Burley Park and Headingley are.

The point is this: sometimes they do a block and I have no objections to the principle but sometimes Northern lose cases because people ask for a valid ticket that is BEYOND the station they require because they are going back there later, and any block should not penalise people.

In one case where someone asked for a ticket that happened to be where the block was, because he was going back there, a Court of Law disagreed with Northern that the person was changing their story and did not agree with Old Timer's interpretation and the customer was found not guilty.

Northern have had a few of their voucher prosecutions in the news because Northern did not act sensibly. Providing they now act sensibly (see aleph_0's post for a more sensible line of questioning) and have robust procedures in place then I have no objections.

 

[Old Timer]

Old Timer: Please take a minute to re-read the original post in this part of the discussion. Then you will see by Bungle and others are getting frustrated with you.

I understand the original point. The passenger did NOT travel from Headingley and when challenged as to why they did not have a ticket they then stated they had travelled from Burley Park. This is the scenario that usually accompanies an attempt at fare evasion, as any of the Guards on here will tell you.

I have maintained all along that it would have been better to have explained the actual journey being made then there would have been no issue. That was not done and there was an issue.

 

[RJ]

I understand the original point. The passenger did NOT travel from Headingley and when challenged as to why they did not have a ticket they then stated they had travelled from Burley Park. This is the scenario that usually accompanies an attempt at fare evasion, as any of the Guards on here will tell you.

I have maintained all along that it would have been better to have explained the actual journey being made then there would have been no issue. That was not done and there was an issue.

Few people who genuinely want the transaction to be done with as quickly as possible would neglect to state where they had travelled from first. I don't see the issue with being upfront and saying "I've travelled from Burley Park but I'd like a return to Headingley please." I'm afraid I don't sympathise with people who expect staff to be psychic.

Some people actually enjoy creating issues and having something to complain about and more often than not, only tell half the story when complaining.

 

[Bungle73]

Few people who genuinely want the transaction to be done with as quickly as possible would neglect to state where they had travelled from first.

Rubbish. If they know what ticket they need that's what they'll ask for.

I don't see the issue with being upfront and saying "I've travelled from Burley Park but I'd like a return to Headingley please." I'm afraid I don't sympathise with people who expect staff to be psychic.

And yet you expect passengers to be psychic and know exactly what to say in order not to arouse the suspicions of ticket office staff who treat every passenger as a potential fare dodger.

Some people actually enjoy creating issues

Agreed; but not the people you mean.

 

[MikeWh]

Few people who genuinely want the transaction to be done with as quickly as possible would neglect to state where they had travelled from first. I don't see the issue with being upfront and saying "I've travelled from Burley Park but I'd like a return to Headingley please." I'm afraid I don't sympathise with people who expect staff to be psychic.

Some people actually enjoy creating issues and having something to complain about and more often than not, only tell half the story when complaining.

On the contrary. Stating the ticket that you actually need (and is perfectly valid) seems to me to be the most straightforward and quickest way of concluding the transaction. I'm getting quite used to doing this having found out that off-peak returns from Dartford to places short of zone 1 are actually cheaper than afternoon peak oyster fares from Crayford.

 

[MKB]

He did tell the truth FFS. Show me where he lied about anything????

This is what ****es people off. Railway employees who go out of their way to try and trip up unsuspecting passengers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Absolutely spot on. Some of the arguments being put forward on this thread beggar belief.

 

[ainsworth74]

So am I to duduce that my belief that the best way to get served quickly was to state exactly what ticket I wanted was wrong and that I should infact give a description of my journey to the ticket seller instead (which will take more time)? This seems a rather silly way to operate. Surely it's better if I just walk up to the ticket window (or a person selling tickets if it's at a gateline) and ask for exactly what I want and then give any further information they require should that initial request on my part provide insufficent information? And why by doing this should I be considered a possible fare evader when I've done nothing demonstrable wrong other than not be aware of a blockade at a station I've not used yet?

 

[nedchester]

Absolutely spot on. Some of the arguments being put forward on this thread beggar belief.

Just because some fare dodgers come up with similar excuses is not an excuse to start prosecuting innocent people.

Maybe we should start prosecuting people with rucksacks because some people with rusksacks have bombs inside them............

 

[WelshBluebird]

The issue here is that the passenger did not reveal the ACTUAL journey that they were making.

That does not matter at all.
As long as the person is asking for tickets that would be valid for their journey, then it does not matter at all what journey they actually made.
Indeed there are sometimes when a longer journey is actually cheaper (for one / a combination of many reasons). So as long as the ticket allows a break of journey, there is no reason at all why a passenger cannot ask for the longer ticket, but only make the shorter journey.
It doesn't matter if you think that sounds suspicious or whatever - they are allowed to do that and so should not be punished because of it.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

So am I to duduce that my belief that the best way to get served quickly was to state exactly what ticket I wanted was wrong and that I should infact give a description of my journey to the ticket seller instead (which will take more time)? This seems a rather silly way to operate. Surely it's better if I just walk up to the ticket window (or a person selling tickets if it's at a gateline) and ask for exactly what I want and then give any further information they require should that initial request on my part provide insufficent information? And why by doing this should I be considered a possible fare evader when I've done nothing demonstrable wrong other than not be aware of a blockade at a station I've not used yet?

Well put!
The passenger would be quite entitled to ask for the product/ticket they wished, or, equally, to ask for what makes it easieet for the retailler. Either should be quite straightforward and neither should present any hazard to the honest passenger.

 

[John @ home]

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.

This was Section 6 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975):

6 Passenger ticket to have fare printed thereon.

From and after a date to be fixed by order of the Board of Trade, and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be allowed by such order, every passenger ticket issued by any railway company in the United Kingdom shall bear upon its face, printed or written in legible characters, the fare chargeable for the journey for which such ticket is issued, and any railway company issuing any passenger ticket in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale for every ticket so issued, to be recovered on summary conviction.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/6

For England, Wales and Scotland, this was repealed from 1 April 1994 by the Railways Act 1993. It appears that the Section is still in force in Northern Ireland.

 

[Pumbaa]

So am I to duduce that my belief that the best way to get served quickly was to state exactly what ticket I wanted was wrong and that I should infact give a description of my journey to the ticket seller instead (which will take more time)? This seems a rather silly way to operate.

Apparently so move along, nothing to see here...

 

[34D]

I understand the original point. The passenger did NOT travel from Headingley and when challenged as to why they did not have a ticket they then stated they had travelled from Burley Park. This is the scenario that usually accompanies an attempt at fare evasion, as any of the Guards on here will tell you.

I have maintained all along that it would have been better to have explained the actual journey being made then there would have been no issue. That was not done and there was an issue.

I think there is a perception (specifically so on this forum, but also in general) that train guards/booking office staff do not understand the system as well as the passenger.

I used to have a couple of regular journeys that involved clause 19c (one season and two non - the season being a london travelcard, with a boundary zone 6-arlesey and an arlesey-yorkshire SVR which I used to travel on the 'morning peak' London-yorkshire services.

I was also once travelling doncaster-wakefield then wkf-leeds later in the day, and for the fun of it asked the NXEC guard if I could just buy doncaster-leeds, but was told I'd have to buy a separate ticket later in the day.

When things like this happen, one can envisage hassle (which costs one money) when requesting any kind of complex ticket (like headingley-leeds starting short).

I must say though, that I am slightly uneasy with the idea of being able to ask for a ticket from a staffed (maybe PF) station by saying one started short at an unbarriered station. For example Arlesey (one station short of Hitchin, 34D) is unbarriered, but has a ticket office and machine, and PF applies. Crews Hill (on the hertford loop, and in london z6) has no ticket office and no machine (unless this has changed recently) - so are we saying our Arlesey fare-dodger needs to do is to say he started short at crews Hill and changed at Fins park, to be allowed out of the barriers at kgx with nothing adverse, and the arlesey-kgx return that he needs.

 

[RJ]

Rubbish. If they know what ticket they need that's what they'll ask for.


And yet you expect passengers to be psychic and know exactly what to say in order not to arouse the suspicions of ticket office staff who treat every passenger as a potential fare dodger.


Agreed; but not the people you mean.

I don't know where you derive your theories from, but my experience working in an Excess Fares office taught me that many people attempt to pay less than they should have. You may dismiss what I say as rubbish but I'd be interested to know what experience you actually have of dealing with ticketless travellers?

Unless I was specifically aware of a problem, I'd ask everyone where they actually travelled from. Anyone who was genuine didn't have a problem with this. I'd say around 65% of people attempted to pay a short fare before I caught them out. Most of these people named a station which is always barriered as the place that they travelled from, which just so happened to be the last calling point of most trains. Quite a few with unvalidated Oyster Cards also claimed to be travelling from there so not exactly hard to disprove any BS claims. Unless you want to tell me that I shouldn't question ticketless travellers claiming to have come from East Croydon or Clapham Junction?
And I do practice what I preach - even today, I had to buy a ticket from the excess window at London Victoria. I asked for the ticket I intended to buy from my origin, explaining that the clerk there refused to sell me a Priv ticket which included Cross London transfer. No problems whatsoever.

I did the Stockport to Chester train once - a load of lads got on at Altrincham and tickets were not checked until Mouldsworth. When the guard came, they all claimed to have come from Delamere and the guard merrily sold the tickets without question. This is what happens when people are trusted, a significant proportion will see fit to take the p*ss. Great customer service, but who's paying for it? Whoever thinks that on board train checks (instead of barriers) are the best way of combating fare evasion is in cloud cuckoo land and given the amount of people who do lie, I think it's appropriate that people are asked the right questions before being sold a ticket. As I say, you can't pick holes in an honest person's story and if done tactfully, I found that it was never an issue for them.

 

[Bungle73]

I don't know where you derive your theories from

Why don't you count up all the people in this thread who said they'd simply ask for the ticket they require; as would I...and I have.

, but my experience working in an Excess Fares office taught me that many people attempt to pay less than they should have. You may dismiss what I say as rubbish but I'd be interested to know what experience you actually have of dealing with ticketless travellers?

Why don't you just equip the excess fares office with a prison cell and be done with it? I mean everyone who presents themselves there is a criminal in your eyes, right?

 

[RJ]

Why don't you count up all the people in this thread who said they'd simply ask for the ticket they require; as would I...and I have.


Why don't you just equip the excess fares office with a prison cell and be done with it? I mean everyone who presents themselves there is a criminal in your eyes, right?

What - just because I asked people where they had travelled from?

 

[WelshBluebird]

What - just because I asked people where they had travelled from?

But if they are asking for a ticket that would be valid, then the fact they travelled from a different station to the one they want the ticket from is meaningless. It doesn't matter.

 

[Bungle73]

What - just because I asked people where they had travelled from?

Well, according to you, and a few other people here, unless the first words out of a passenger's mouth follow your "rules" then they're trying it on.

 

[aleph_0]

What - just because I asked people where they had travelled from?

But that was the whole problem we were discussing. If I say "return from Headingley please", that doesn't mean that I got on at Headingley. You are more then welcome to ask where I got on, and I would answer truthfully. But the fact that I didn't explain my choice of ticket initially, shouldn't be treated as suspicious on it's own (which was what I objected to, and why I gave a specific example as to how it would be a much better question to ask, rather than asking a passenger how they got around the block).

 

[yorkie]

I have no problem with the customer being asked where they travelled from. My concern is that is a passenger asked to pay a higher fare than they needed to pay because they were going back a greater distance later, then all that needs to happen is that the customer is asked where they actually boarded. That's fine. But if the customer is treated as a criminal because it is assumed that they could not possibly be starting short then that is where problems occur. I would trust RJ to ask appropriate questions and get it right, and providing there were safeguards in place to ensure that people were not incorrectly accused, then there is no problem.

 

[RJ]

All I'm saying is that I would establish the situation to my satisfaction prior to issuing any ticket. I'd pose questions that could not trip up or antagonise an honest passenger.

Well, according to you, and a few other people here, unless the first words out of a passenger's mouth follow your "rules" then they're trying it on.

I never once said that anyone who didn't state their point of boarding first was trying it on, although I can understand why the usual anti revenue protection crowd would want me to have said that. I'm afraid said crowd has to accept that the railway is not a museum which you can traverse without paying.

 

[Bungle73]

All I'm saying is that I would establish the situation to my satisfaction prior to issuing any ticket. I'd pose questions that could not trip up or antagonise an honest passenger.



I never once said that anyone who didn't state their point of boarding first was trying it on, although I can understand why the usual anti revenue protection crowd would want me to have said that. I'm afraid said crowd has to accept that the railway is not a museum which you can traverse without paying.

But that is exactly what was suggested, and is what we're discussing here.