NRCoC 5.2 defence

[najaB]

£31.80 surely, since day singles would suffice for the separate journeys?

I suppose so, assuming that they're not breaking journey and know exactly when they are returning. But I was trying to compare like for like.

 

[najaB]

No it's not been used twice at all.

Two people each made a single journey. That's using it twice as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Dai Corner]

This isn’t about extra cost but denied revenue.

Or is it about revenue gained by treating one group of purchasers differently to another?

 

[AlterEgo]

Or is it about revenue gained by treating one group of purchasers differently to another?

I’m not sure I follow?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or is it about revenue gained by treating one group of purchasers differently to another?

Most other use-cases tend to involve both halves of the return ticket being used by the same person as intended.

Attempts to sell on return halves are looked out for, though mostly by reporting to eBay etc rather than by stopping people on trains.

 

[Dai Corner]

I’m not sure I follow?

Me: I'm travelling from Bristol to Swindon and and back outside the rush hour.

Ticket seller: An off-peak return ticket will be £19.00 please sir.

The following week

Me: I'm buying tickets for one of my employees to travel from Bristol to Swindon and another to travel from Swindon to Bristol. I believe that will be £19.00?

Ticket Seller: You will need two single tickets at £18.50 each.


I am buying the same service in each case but the cost is nearly double in the second one. it could be argued that the railway is using a loophole to overcharge me.

 

[221129]

Me: I'm travelling from Bristol to Swindon and and back outside the rush hour.

Ticket seller: An off-peak return ticket will be £19.00 please sir.

The following week

Me: I'm buying tickets for one of my employees to travel from Bristol to Swindon and another to travel from Swindon to Bristol. I believe that will be £19.00?

Ticket Seller: You will need two single tickets at £18.50 each.


I am buying the same service in each case but the cost is nearly double in the second one. it could be argued that the railway is using a loophole to overcharge me.

No it couldn't. There is no loophole.

 

[DavidGrain]

Me: I'm travelling from Bristol to Swindon and and back outside the rush hour.
Ticket seller: An off-peak return ticket will be £19.00 please sir.
The following week
Me: I'm buying tickets for one of my employees to travel from Bristol to Swindon and another to travel from Swindon to Bristol. I believe that will be £19.00
Ticket Seller: You will need two single tickets at £18.50 each.
I am buying the same service in each case but the cost is nearly double in the second one. it could be argued that the railway is using a loophole to overcharge me.

No you are buying a ticket for Joe at £18.50 and attempting to get a ticket for Charlie at £0.50. That is precisely why railway (and bus) tickets have been non transferable for over 150 years.

 

[Dai Corner]

No you are buying a ticket for Joe at £18.50 and attempting to get a ticket for Charlie at £0.50. That is precisely why railway (and bus) tickets have been non transferable for over 150 years.

No, the argument is that I'm buying two journeys and being charged either £9.50 or £18.50 each. It's a curious anomaly that I think only exists in the world of public transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, the argument is that I'm buying two journeys and being charged either £9.50 or £18.50 each. It's a curious anomaly that I think only exists in the world of public transport.

Or you're buying two £18.50 journeys and getting a substantial discount for making two of them, one in each direction, within a month and by the same person.

 

[DavidGrain]

No, the argument is that I'm buying two journeys and being charged either £9.50 or £18.50 each. It's a curious anomaly that I think only exists in the world of public transport.

My nearest shop charges £1.50 for 2 loaves of bread but I don't have a big enough freezer to store that much bread so I only buy one.

 

[Dai Corner]

My nearest shop charges £1.50 for 2 loaves of bread but I don't have a big enough freezer to store that much bread so I only buy one.

You could buy two and share the saving with a friend or neighbour. Quite the opposite situation to railway tickets!

 

[talldave]

My nearest shop charges £1.50 for 2 loaves of bread but I don't have a big enough freezer to store that much bread so I only buy one.

The supermarket I use supplies loaves with fully transferable slices, so my partner and I don't need a loaf each .

 

[AlterEgo]

No, the argument is that I'm buying two journeys and being charged either £9.50 or £18.50 each. It's a curious anomaly that I think only exists in the world of public transport.

No, you aren’t buying just “journeys”. You are paying for the right for a person to be transported from A to B.

This isn’t really a curious anomaly and exists in many places, for example, parking tickets. Or try watching the first half of a football game, exiting at half time, and handing your ticket to someone else and see if that’s alright (it isn’t). Also applies to airline tickets. I can’t buy a Stockholm-London-New York ticket and fly Stockholm to London and then get someone else to fly the second leg on the same ticket. Could rattle these examples off all evening.

 

[JB_B]

This sort of ill-informed rhetoric doesn't do this forum's reputation any favours.

I regret that all you are highlighting here is your own uninformed analysis.
Again, these opinions only undermine this forum's credibility.

I guess you have your reasons for posting this inflamatory and poorly understood opinions of legal process. But regardless of your reasons, the consequence reflects only on the impression they create of you, and of the forum.

In the area of law with which I'm (tangentially) familiar it is common knowledge that the standard of decision-making of some judges is poor. Not infrequently, upper-tier judges lambast the poor decision-making of their lower tier colleagues when overturning their decisions. Inadequacies of the judiciary are understood and discussed in open forum.

My own view is that ForTheLoveOf is more than over-egging her/his case but I don't see how the comments made so far could possibly harm the reputation of this forum.

 

[Dai Corner]

No, you aren’t buying just “journeys”. You are paying for the right for a person to be transported from A to B.

This isn’t really a curious anomaly and exists in many places, for example, parking tickets. Or try watching the first half of a football game, exiting at half time, and handing your ticket to someone else and see if that’s alright (it isn’t). Also applies to airline tickets. I can’t buy a Stockholm-London-New York ticket and fly Stockholm to London and then get someone else to fly the second leg on the same ticket. Could rattle these examples off all evening.

What's a train journey if it's not 'the right for a person to be transported from A to B'? There's no logical reason why I shouldn't share the parking time, football ticket or flight I've paid for with someone else just like talldave shares his loaf of bread. It's just that custom and practice is that it isn't done.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . Could rattle these examples off all evening.

. . . . such as a programme of dental work, or a life insurance policy, or a mobile phone contract, or . . . .

No, you aren’t buying just “journeys”. You are paying for the right for a person to be transported from A to B.

That's right. The tickets aren't an exchangeable bill such as a currency note (which entitles payment to the bearer 'on demand') but is evidence of a contract - just one contract in the case of a 'return ticket' - a contract between two parties :
1) the Railway Company (or through the RSP, Companies), and
2) the passenger who is to be conveyed by the Railway Company (or Companies).

Certain property rights can be transferred without involving the consent of the party granting the rights, and some contracts to supply a service can be re-assigned for fulfillment without advising the receiving party, but most contracts are between indentifiable parties who remain bound by its terms.

 

[Dai Corner]

. . . . such as a programme of dental work, or a life insurance policy, or a mobile phone contract, or . . . .
That's right. The tickets aren't an exchangeable bill such as a currency not (which entitles payment to the bearer 'on demand') but is evidence of a contract - just one contract in the case of a 'return ticket' - a contract between two parties :
1) the Railway Company (or through the RSP, Companies), and
2) the passenger who is to be conveyed by the Railway Company (or Companies).

Certain property rights can be transferred without involving the consent of the party granting the rights, and some contracts to supply a service can be re-assigned for fulfillment without advising the receiving party, but most contracts are between indentifiable parties who remain bound by its terms.

I'm not arguing that train tickets aren't transferable, I'm saying I find it odd that they're not. Life assurance is obviously associated with a named individual, but health insurance companies effectively buy dental treatment in bulk for use by their policyholders. My mobile phone contract is between me and the provider but I can let somebody else use my phone or even put my SIM in their phone.

 

[Llanigraham]

What's a train journey if it's not 'the right for a person to be transported from A to B'? There's no logical reason why I shouldn't share the parking time, football ticket or flight I've paid for with someone else just like talldave shares his loaf of bread. It's just that custom and practice is that it isn't done.

I suggest you start looking at many of the parking tickets you buy. Many now quite catagorically state "Not Transferrable" and people have been prosecuted for doing exactly what you have suggested, and it is also why many machines now demand that you enter all or part of your number plate.

 

[JB_B]

Clearly the use of out and back by different people is a misuse of the ticket.

It sounds as if the OP was unaware of this. It's very likely that the employer ( which encouraged this misuse ) was equally unaware.

In any case, their policy of getting staff to use tickets in this way may have deprived the TOC of a significant amount of revenue.

A decent employer would take this on and deal direct with the TOC to sort it out. If individual employees are hung out to dry then it's a disgrace ( Sadly this doesn't sound like a sector that's likely to have significant unionisation.)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

In the area of law with which I'm (tangentially) familiar it is common knowledge that the standard of decision-making of some judges is poor. Not infrequently, . . . . .

I'm well aware of that, though it is my experience that the vast majority of appeals (and JRs against failed appeals) also fail, and do so on sound reasoning. I will disagree with "Not infrequently". Justified criticism of lower Courts' decisions is infrequent; though is likely to receive more attention when it does arise, justifiably so.

My own view is . . . . .

So be it. Thank you.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm not arguing that train tickets aren't transferable, I'm saying I find it odd that they're not. . . . .

When compared to other consumer products and services we come across, perhaps it is a little odd. Though I am inclined to agree with AlterEgo that non-transferrable agreements are more prevalent than you might expect.

BUT, consider for a moment the consequences of 'liberalisation' of the transferability of a rail ticket - We would see Season tickets appearing in offices and clubs and households where the 'benefit' of a reduced price offered to one regular traveller is being exploited by several travellers; The extra cost of 0.10p for a return would be widely traded on station concourses with impunity; The 'carnet' ticket would be traded in schools, offices, shops, other institutions and on the streets; The cheap promotional 'Advance' tickets would be bought and sold by ticket touts outside major stations on the day of travel; etc., etc.

OR, MORE PROBABLY :-
all these discounted ticket types for multiple travel by a contracted passenger which provide significant savings in cost for that passenger, would be withdrawn.

 

[pat472]

discounted ticket types for multiple travel

Is it really discounted for return travel, or is it a case of the single rising significantly to become near the amount of the return? I know this varies route-by-route but I wouldn't be surprised if was what has happened.

 

[MichaelAMW]

What's a train journey if it's not 'the right for a person to be transported from A to B'? There's no logical reason why I shouldn't share the parking time, football ticket or flight I've paid for with someone else just like talldave shares his loaf of bread. It's just that custom and practice is that it isn't done.

It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of the business model being used. Return tickets are priced on the basis of exactly one person using both halves; single tickets are sold to a different sector the market and are accordingly priced differently. If I'm going somewhere and then back home I probably have a car I can use and the "discount" affects my likelihood of going by rail; if I'm only going one way then perhaps I have no car or, at least, it doesn't help that I have. Note that in some return situations where that car is of no use, e.g. commuting into London, the rush-hour return generally gives little discount or none at all.

(I appreciate this isn't an exhaustive explanation of ticket pricing but the point is that it's significantly about what the market can stand vs any regulation that might control increases.)

 

[Dai Corner]

When compared to other consumer products and services we come across, perhaps it is a little odd. Though I am inclined to agree with AlterEgo that non-transferrable agreements are more prevalent than you might expect.

BUT, consider for a moment the consequences of 'liberalisation' of the transferability of a rail ticket - We would see Season tickets appearing in offices and clubs and households where the 'benefit' of a reduced price offered to one regular traveller is being exploited by several travellers. The extra cost of 0.10p for a return would be widely traded on station concourses with impunity, the 'carnet' ticket would be traded in schools, offices, shops, other institutions and on the streets, cheap promotional 'Advance' tickets would be bought and sold by ticket touts outside major stations on the day of travel, etc., etc.

OR, MORE PROBABLY :-
all these discounted ticket types for multiple travel by a contracted passenger which provide significant savings in cost for the passenger, would be withdrawn.

I wouldn't be surprised if return halves are regularly transferred with or without payment. Detection is virtually impossible; this thread is the first case I've read of anyone being caught.

What difference does it make to the railway if different people use parts of a carnet, or a season ticket on different days except that they'd rather sell two that were only used in some days? It could be argued that irregular travellers buying Anytime tickets are subsidising season ticket holders. Is that fair?

 

[AlterEgo]

What difference does it make to the railway if different people use parts of a carnet, or a season ticket on different days?

Because the railway is being deprived of revenue; TOCs do not reckon on every single carnet being used or season tickets being used 365 days a year. If they did have to reckon that, they’d be a lot more expensive.

None of this is helping the OP who is in a serious situation. This appears to be more than a regular dispute/prosecution in that it seems likely there is specific intelligence behind the conversation that was had on the day.

 

[sheff1]

..their time would be better spent chasing those who attempt to travel without paying.

Such as the OP. I agree.

You really think that TOCs should be chasing people whose employer's purchase a ticket for them ??

 

[DavidGrain]

You really think that TOCs should be chasing people whose employer's purchase a ticket for them ??

This is not about employers purchasing tickets for their employees. This is about a breach of the regulations by transferring a non-transferable ticket

 

[Dai Corner]

Because the railway is being deprived of revenue; TOCs do not reckon on every single carnet being used or season tickets being used 365 days a year. If they did have to reckon that, they’d be a lot more expensive.

You didn't quote my last sentence. Is it right that someone making five identical return journeys a week pays less per journey than someone only making three, or one making ten different journeys of similar length? Or less than someone making twenty? Or, to return to the original point, a company paying for an employee to make a return journey pays less than a company paying for one employee to travel between the same two points and a different emoloyee to make the same journey in the opposite direction.?

None of this is helping the OP who is in a serious situation. This appears to be more than a regular dispute/prosecution in that it seems likely there is specific intelligence behind the conversation that was had on the day.

Agreed. I think the consensus is that he's been the one unlucky enough to be caught and will unfortunately have to take the consequences. I hope his company will stand by him as they at the very least tacitly accepted the transfer of tickets.

 

[MotCO]

I probably side with posters who argue that a return ticket can only be used by a single person. However, if the return halves were pinned on the office notice board for any colleague to use, is it not possible that you can pick up the return half of a ticket you yourself have used? Therefore that would not be contrary to the NRCoT. So should the reponsibility be placed on the railways to prove that you yourself did not use both halves of the same ticket, which is almost impossible to prove?