Facing prosecution [XC - Using a ticket on a cheaper route]

[SELW]

My son who lives in Altrincham travels to High Wycombe occasionally as part of his work. His firm pays for all of his rail tickets.

He bought his tickets at Altrincham station at the ticket office. He explained to the member of staff that he wanted to buy a return ticket that allowed him to have a choice of how he travels back from High Wycombe ie through London or an alternative route.

The return tickets that he has been sold have been checked by inspectors on the trains back to Altrincham without comment, so he had no reason to think that his ticket was not valid.

The last time he travelled to High Wycombe he again bought his ticket from Altrincham ticket office explaining what he wanted the return ticket to allow him to do as before.

This time when travelling on Chiltern Railways home his ticket was checked by a revenue inspector who said that his ticket was not valid. He explained how he had been sold the ticket by a member of railway staff (not from a ticket machine as it says in the revenue inspectors report. ) He highlighted the fact that he had no intention of avoiding paying for a ticket, having been clear with the ticket office staff that he wanted a ticket that gives him choice of how to travel home.

The revenue inspector took his name and address and said that he would receive a letter.

The letter arrived from a company threatening him with prosecution. He has replied twice,once explaining how he bought the tickets with a photocopy of proof that he purchased them from the ticket office and after a second standard letter saying what may happen next, a reply asking how the matter could be resolved without resorting to court action.
He has now received a letter saying that he are taking him to court.

He has emailed Chiltern and Virgin asking what sort of tickets he would need to buy in this situation and their replies have been two singles. Unfortunately this information has not reached Altrincham ticket office.

Any advice on his next plan of action gratefully received.
-Pleading guilty and putting it down to life's rich experience
-sending the company a letter to seek an out of court settlement
-Pleading not guilty - he explained clearly what he wanted the ticket to do. I see from the conditions of sale "Train Company's ticket office staff will give advice about tickets, and any restrictions concerning their use,"

With thanks

 

[221129]

To assist you better members on here will ask you to provide exact details on the tickets held if you can get them.

 

[yorkie]

He bought his tickets at Altrincham station at the ticket office. He explained to the member of staff that he wanted to buy a return ticket that allowed him to have a choice of how he travels back from High Wycombe ie through London or an alternative route.

Depending on the time of travel, he should either have been sold an Anytime Return (SOR) or Off Peak Return (SVR), routed "[FONT=DejaVu Sans,Arial Unicode MS]+[/FONT]VIA LONDON", which would be valid either avoiding London or via London.

The return tickets that he has been sold have been checked by inspectors on the trains back to Altrincham without comment, so he had no reason to think that his ticket was not valid.

What tickets were these?

The last time he travelled to High Wycombe he again bought his ticket from Altrincham ticket office explaining what he wanted the return ticket to allow him to do as before.

What ticket was he sold exactly? Was it the same ticket as before?

This time when travelling on Chiltern Railways home his ticket was checked by a revenue inspector who said that his ticket was not valid.

Without knowing what ticket was held, what train was caught, and any other relevant details, I cannot possibly comment or advise without speculation, which I would prefer not to do.

He explained how he had been sold the ticket by a member of railway staff (not from a ticket machine as it says in the revenue inspectors report. ) He highlighted the fact that he had no intention of avoiding paying for a ticket, having been clear with the ticket office staff that he wanted a ticket that gives him choice of how to travel home.

The revenue inspector took his name and address and said that he would receive a letter.

The letter arrived from a company threatening him with prosecution. He has replied twice,once explaining how he bought the tickets with a photocopy of proof that he purchased them from the ticket office and after a second standard letter saying what may happen next, a reply asking how the matter could be resolved without resorting to court action.
He has now received a letter saying that he are taking him to court.

He has emailed Chiltern and Virgin asking what sort of tickets he would need to buy in this situation and their replies have been two singles. Unfortunately this information has not reached Altrincham ticket office.

This doesn't sound right to me, however without knowing much more information I cannot advise what the best ticket(s) to purchase would be or whether the tickets held were valid.

Any advice on his next plan of action gratefully received.
-Pleading guilty and putting it down to life's rich experience
-sending the company a letter to seek an out of court settlement
-Pleading not guilty - he explained clearly what he wanted the ticket to do. I see from the conditions of sale "Train Company's ticket office staff will give advice about tickets, and any restrictions concerning their use,"

With thanks

Absolutely no idea what to advise at this stage, as I do not have any of the information (there is plenty of supplementary information but none of the crucial information regarding the journey or exact ticket held).

 

[SELW]

Further info fro my son
For the journey, on that date, in person I purchased a ticket from rail staff at the Altrincham ticket office.
• I informed them I wished to buy an off peak open return from Altrincham to High Wycombe.
• I informed them that I intended to travel to High Wycombe “not via London”.
• I informed them I wished to have the option of returning to Altrincham “via London”. This is to better suit the requirements of my employment.
I was informed I should purchase a £90.00 “via London”, which I purchased. This ticket is more expensive than the “not via London” route which costs £83.30.
Whilst travelling between Stockport and Leamington Spa my ticket was inspected by a ticket inspector. I was informed that my ticket was invalid due to the route I was travelling on. Specifically because I had a “via London” ticket on a “not via London route"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The return ticket is labelled off peak return via London.

 

[NSEFAN]

There is no "Any Permitted" fare that exists for your son's journey, it's either via London, or not via London, not both. He should have been advised of this at the time he purchased the tickets. I would have thought that he should either have been instructed to excess his ticket should he decide to change his route, or purchase two singles (perhaps purchasing the single for his journey back once he knew which route to take).

In any case I am a bit surprised that this has ended up a prosecution. Was he unable to pay for a new ticket when the inspector met him on the return journey?

 

[furlong]

Well I think this would make for an interesting test case for the interaction between the National Rail Conditions of Carriage and the Routeing Guide!

But based on the information you have provided, I think you were overcharged for that journey, and for this to lead to a threat of prosecution ought to be a matter of concern for both the ORR and the DfT.

 

[SELW]

Apologies!

I have got some of the facts wrong.

Just checked with my son again who confirms that he travelled on Northern, CrossCountry, and Chiltern. Its CrossCountry who are prosecuting everyone else is happy.

He emailed Northern and CrossCountry who said he needed singles.

It was the outwards journey where he had the problems, not the return.

He has done this journey many times before.

Thank you for your quick replies.

 

[bb21]

Well I think this would make for an interesting test case for the interaction between the National Rail Conditions of Carriage and the Routeing Guide!

But based on the information you have provided, I think you were overcharged for that journey, and for this to lead to a threat of prosecution ought to be a matter of concern for both the ORR and the DfT.

Absolutely.

It is of great concern that this case ended up at the prosecution stage for the reason stated.

I would be inclined to let this case proceed to court if I were in the OP's position assuming that there is nothing else we have not been told.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He emailed Northern and CrossCountry who said he needed singles.

That is most shocking.

The correct procedure for exactly this type of scenario is covered in the Routeing Guide, Section A, on the second last page. The Routeing Guide is referenced in Condition 13 of the NRCoC.

DUAL ROUTE AVAILABILITY

Where two or more permitted routes are available for a specific journey, customers may wish to travel out by one route and return by another. If a higher fare applies for the return leg of the journey the customer should be issued with a ticket for the more direct route and an excess fare issued to cover the difference in fare for the return routeing. This option should be made available to customers who wish to pre-book a dual routed ticket prior to travel.

The alternative journey MUST relate to the same routeing points for the origin and destination stations.

This option may not apply to customers holding Advance tickets, or tickets which are available by specified trains or endorsed for travel only by the services of a particular train operator.

So not only was your son overcharged imo, there was absolutely no ground for prosecution assuming that we have been told all relevant facts of the case. A zero-fare excess to the cheaper Not Via London fare should have been issued by the guard on the CrossCountry service should he be that bothered about the routing on the ticket.

 

[NSEFAN]

So not only was your son overcharged imo, there was absolutely no ground for prosecution assuming that we have been told all relevant facts of the case. A zero-fare excess to the cheaper Not Via London fare should have been issued by the guard on the CrossCountry service should he be that bothered about the routing on the ticket.

Should the zero-fare excess not have been done at High Wycombe before he commenced the return journey? The ticket was technically still invalidly used, given the higher fare isn't automatically valid for the cheaper route without an excess.

 

[bb21]

Should the zero-fare excess not have been done at High Wycombe before he commenced the return journey? The ticket was technically still invalidly used, given the higher fare isn't automatically valid for the cheaper route without an excess.

Condition 13e makes no mention of the excess fare having to be purchased from the ticket office. There is also no mention of Conditions 2 or 4 in Condition 13, as opposed to Condition 10, for example.

 

[SELW]

A zero-fare excess to the cheaper Not Via London fare should have been issued by the guard

In the end that is what actually happened.

 

[221129]

In the end that is what actually happened.

So he can't have been reported for prosecution then surely...?

 

[cuccir]

So just to clarify, he is being prosecuted on the basis of being on a Cross-Country Train between Stockport and Leamington Spa on the Outward journey of a £90 Altrincham-High Wycombe via London Off Peak Return?

Your son should have been sold a Altrincham-High Wycombe not via London Off Peak Return, with an excess for the return leg to travel via London.

Either way, off-route excess tickets should be sold on the train. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage state:

If you make your journey by a route other than those referred to in (a) and (b) above, you will be liable to pay an excess fare. This excess fare will be the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket(s) available at a ticket office for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel by that route.

When on the train, technically the guard should have sold a £0 excess, which can be done on board. Prosecution for this is ludicrous.

 

[furlong]

Technically the two routes may relate to different routeing points (South Ruislip vs Princes Risborough).

 

[bb21]

In the end that is what actually happened.

There are two types of zero-fare excess. Was his ticket confiscated?

 

[SELW]

There are two types of zero-fare excess. Was his ticket confiscated?

Yes, and replaced with the excess. He was allowed to keep the return ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So just to clarify, he is being prosecuted on the basis of being on a Cross-Country Train between Leamington Spa and Stockport on the Outward journey of a £90 High Wycombe-Altrincham via London Off Peak Return?

Yes.

Specifically under: Contrary to S5 (3) (a) of The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 as amended by section 84 (2) of the Transport Act 1962 and section 18 of the British Railways Act 1907.

 

[bb21]

Technically the two routes may relate to different routeing points (South Ruislip vs Princes Risborough).

I take it to mean that the origin must relate to the same routeing points (rather than routeing points that pass fares check, or alternatively appropriate routeing points), and the same with the destination.

Otherwise it would be a pointless rule as by the very nature of this type of excess, the routeing points which pass fares check could be quite different for different routings for many flows, especially in Via London / Not Via London cases.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, and replaced with the excess. He was allowed to keep the return ticket.

That is not the same type of zero-fare excess as the one I described. What he was given was one which needed to be issued where a ticket is withdrawn for further investigation in order to allow the passenger to still complete the journey and not be left stranded.

Specifically under: Contrary to S5 (3) (a) of The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 as amended by section 84 (2) of the Transport Act 1962 and section 18 of the British Railways Act 1907.

So they are prosecuting him for fare evasion - for an unpaid fare of, what, zero?! I've seen it all now.

 

[SELW]

In the court summons they are asking for £52.70 for the fare. Which would seem to amount to being forced to pay twice. Isn't the money already within the rail network, do they just need to claim it from the "via London" company?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So they are prosecuting him for fare evasion - for an unpaid fare of, what, zero?! I've seen it all now.

From the summons "...travel upon a Cross Country railway service without having previously paid the fare of £52.70 and with intent to avoid payment thereof"

 

[furlong]

From the summons "...travel upon a Cross Country railway service without having previously paid the fare of £52.70 and with intent to avoid payment thereof"

I'm struggling to understand how they would hope to prove 'intent to avoid payment', given that you might call the member of ticket office staff whose advice was followed to attend court as a witness.

Something really isn't adding up here.

 

[maniacmartin]

If the events transpired as described, then no fare evasion has taken place as per the availability of cheaper-routed tickets on more expensive routes as described up-thread. It's pretty clearly worded in the National Routeing Guide, as is the ability to excess as per the National Rail Conditions of Carriage

I think it would be easier if your son posted to this forum directly so we can get the correct answers first time about which tickts were held, and what was said, without hearing it second-hand.

 

[Phil.]

Further info fro my son
For the journey, on that date, in person I purchased a ticket from rail staff at the Altrincham ticket office.
• I informed them I wished to buy an off peak open return from Altrincham to High Wycombe.
• I informed them that I intended to travel to High Wycombe “not via London”.
• I informed them I wished to have the option of returning to Altrincham “via London”. This is to better suit the requirements of my employment.
I was informed I should purchase a £90.00 “via London”, which I purchased. This ticket is more expensive than the “not via London” route which costs £83.30.
Whilst travelling between Stockport and Leamington Spa my ticket was inspected by a ticket inspector. I was informed that my ticket was invalid due to the route I was travelling on. Specifically because I had a “via London” ticket on a “not via London route"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The return ticket is labelled off peak return via London.

You have my sympathies. Some weeks ago I asked for a return via London to Queenborough. Upon reaching the ticket-refusing barrier at Victoria I was told the ticket wasn't valid via London. I missed the train that I was intending to catch whilst paying the excess fare. The excess fare that I had to pay? £1.20. That'll put the share price up.

 

[SELW]

I think it would be easier if your son posted to this forum directly so we can get the correct answers first time about which tickts were held, and what was said, without hearing it second-hand.

Hey, son here, I can answer any additional questions you have, cheers.

 

[furlong]

A possible outline argument:

1) The ticket was valid for the journey (as advised by ticket office - witness, and some inferences from various documents but this line of argument is not clear-cut - the ticket office advice could turn out to have been wrong in law)

failing that

2) A change of route excess at zero cost should have been issued on the train (as per railway custom and practice, operating procedures, documentation, contract terms etc.) such that the fare should have been treated as paid even if some further paperwork needed completing

failing that

3) There was no intent (following staff advice - witness, advice on previous occasions perhaps, and more).


Further, if it is determined that no additional money was in fact due for the journey, consider whether this has highlighted a problem that the industry needs to address, and whether the ORR should become involved (is this a one-off mistake, or might it perhaps be evidence of an illegal policy to overcharge passengers?) or the DfT (is this evidence of a franchise breach?)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I take it to mean that the origin must relate to the same routeing points (rather than routeing points that pass fares check, or alternatively appropriate routeing points), and the same with the destination.

I've always taken the narrow interpretation here despite British Rail having no such restriction (and the TSA allows these excesses anyway, but doesn't mandate them) - but I accept that it is, like far too much of this legal document, ambiguous, and open to your more generous interpretation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm struggling to understand how they would hope to prove 'intent to avoid payment', given that you might call the member of ticket office staff whose advice was followed to attend court as a witness.

I'd say there are three options: the OP isn't being truthful, XC are being incompetent or XC are deciding to chance their arm at getting a "settlement".

I'd be curious as to where exactly the OP's son ran into issues, given that he would only be deviating off route after Coventry...

 

[furlong]

Hey, son here, I can answer any additional questions you have, cheers.

When is the court date - how much time is there still to get this sorted out?

 

[SELW]

A week if I plead guilty, otherwise it will be rearranged for another date.

 

[furlong]

I'd be curious as to where exactly the OP's son ran into issues, given that he would only be deviating off route after Coventry...

Yet the 52.70 stated is Stockport to Leamington Spa (SOS) which is what you'd expect if the ticket had been lost or the date on the ticket was wrong.

 

[SELW]

I'd be curious as to where exactly the OP's son ran into issues, given that he would only be deviating off route after Coventry...

Somewhere between Macclesfield and Birmingham if I remember correctly. This was all about 5 months ago.

 

[Be3G]

If the events transpired as described, then no fare evasion has taken place as per the availability of cheaper-routed tickets on more expensive routes as described up-thread.

I don't think that point has actually been mentioned so far – the quote from the routeing guide provided earlier on talks about the need for an excess. You're right though, the routeing guide section A certainly used to explicitly say that a ticket with a specific route was also valid for all cheaper routes without the need for any tomfoolery (excesses etc.), though it no longer does so, which I hope doesn't pose a problem here?

Having said that, I would hope that the fact a zero-excess fare is all that's needed should mean a prosecution would sink.

 

[bb21]

I'd be curious as to where exactly the OP's son ran into issues, given that he would only be deviating off route after Coventry...

Me too, so some clarification on that from the OP would have been useful, and what conversation took place at the time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think that point has actually been mentioned so far – the quote from the routeing guide provided earlier on talks about the need for an excess. You're right though, the routeing guide section A certainly used to explicitly say that a ticket with a specific route was also valid for all cheaper routes without the need for any tomfoolery (excesses etc.), though it no longer does so, which I hope doesn't pose a problem here?

It is still there, towards the top of the second page in Section A:

Where the fare specifies a particular route, there will be restrictions in the fare routes data that will affect the routes listed in the Guide which pass through the station shown in the route description. The National Routeing Guide may be used to find out how to reach the station
shown in the route description. Where there are other permitted routes, these may also be used for the same journey provided the same or a lower fare applies.

I would say take them to court and dish out a spanking. It is a great example of a TOC whose prosecutions department gets things spectacularly wrong.