NRCoC 5.2 defence

[ForTheLoveOf]

It could be argued that irregular travellers buying Anytime tickets are subsidising season ticket holders. Is that fair?

Where it is possible to do so, the privatised railway (and indeed many others around the world, whether public or private) has shifted towards market-based pricing, i.e. charging the maximum amount possible that each kind of customer will pay. Is it fair that business travellers subsidise economy passengers on flights - or that those who book early are losing the airline money and getting a discount off the back of those who book the day before the flight?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

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?

The responsibility to prove all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt is, in a criminal prosecution, the job of the prosecutor (i.e. the railways here). However, in many cases their case is virtually made for them, given what the passenger has said in interview with the RPI or in responses to letters. Hence why I asked upthread whether OP had merely admitted that someone else had bought the ticket, or whether he had admitted that someone else had already used the outbound leg. IMO, this is a critical difference - if the latter has not been admitted, I would have thought that the train company would require CCTV evidence or some other kind of surveillance/tracking etc. to prove the offence.

As we have all read and discussed, a person could buy a ticket in a personal capacity for themselves, in a personal capacity for another person, in a corporate capacity for their employer or in many other capacities. Hence the admission that a different person travelled than bought the ticket does not seem, to me, sufficient evidence of a transfer of a non-transferable ticket IMO (it may satisfy the "balance of probabilities" test at civil Court, but I am not convinced it would pass the "beyond all reasonable doubt" test at criminal Court).

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Certain mobile contracts prohibit you from sharing your data with others by way of a personal hotspot, though, and on iOS phones they can physically prevent it too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

To the railway the advantage of pursuing the individual is that they can prosecute. They can't prosecute the company, they would have to sue them, which may be more difficult.

 

[farleigh]

Would it have been more reasonable for the TOC/RPI to just give a warning in the first instance. I am sure nobody set out to deliberately defraud them. I am sure this post will be met by 'ignorance is no defence' or 'strict liability' etc. Just think it would have been more reasonable in the first instance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it have been more reasonable for the TOC/RPI to just give a warning in the first instance. I am sure nobody set out to deliberately defraud them. I am sure this post will be met by 'ignorance is no defence' or 'strict liability' etc. Just think it would have been more reasonable in the first instance.

Do we know that they didn't, e.g. by writing to the employer, and the employer perhaps filed it, as it were.

 

[farleigh]

Do we know that they didn't, e.g. by writing to the employer, and the employer perhaps filed it, as it were.

Do we know that they did?

 

[talldave]

Do we know that they did?

Well there's the mystery of the RPI visit to the company....

 

[dcsprior]

There's been a lot of discussion of things like:

• Whether it's fair on for the railway to not allow a part-used ticket to be transferred.
• Analogous (or not) situations away from rail travel
• Whether the layman's definition of "ticket" (i.e. a single piece of orange cardboard) can be used when interpretting the NRCoC/T, as that would mean a part-used ticket hadn't been transferred.
• How the TOC was able to detect this.

But am I right in thinking that if the OP is less interested in theoretical discussions than what they should do, no-one is suggesting they do anything other than pay what's been asked and ask their employer to reimburse them for it? The first post says "they intend to fine me £102" which I presume means they're offering a settlement - if this is the case then presumably the only downsides of paying are the cost (which isn't relevant if the employer reimburses them) and the fact that if they ever end up getting stopped without a valid ticket again, even if as a misunderstanding/mistake, they'll probably find they've used up their one chance of this - whereas the potential downsides of not paying are greater.

 

[furlong]

What we would call the return portion of a return ticket, might also be considered a Ticket in its own right because:

“Ticket” means any physical or electronic document or record which entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail Network between the stations or within the zones indicated by one or more of the operators listed in Appendix A.

You might argue that the physical document presented carried that entitlement and thus 5.2 applies to it in its own right.

(It's actually difficult to argue otherwise because if you claimed that "a journey" means "the entire out+return journey" and the barriers withdraw the outward portion of the ticket after that part is used, the return portion alone would not itself entitle the making of the whole out+return journey and thus not be a "Ticket" under that definition - so you're forced into accepting that the return portion of the journey alone is "a journey" for the purpose of this definition and the return portion of the ticket indeed constitutes a "Ticket" under this definition.)

 

[furlong]

So for the purpose of 5.2, I'd suggest the return portion of the ticket indeed constitutes a Ticket in its own right that may be used by any person employed by that business, given that that Ticket was purchased on its behalf together with the outward Ticket.

What's interesting here is that it's the Conditions of Travel that provide this additional clarity: the Conditions of Carriage don't seem to have the same ambiguity.

 

[AlterEgo]

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?.

I don’t really understand your point, and if you genuinely don’t grasp why railway tickets (along with a huge number of other services in other industries) have dynamic or market-based pricing then I don’t think now’s the time to discuss it.

The ticket is non transferable. I understand you don’t like that, but this area of the forum is dedicated to helping the OP (who is in trouble), not for wholly academic discussions.

 

[AlterEgo]

So for the purpose of 5.2, I'd suggest the return portion of the ticket indeed constitutes a Ticket in its own right that may be used by any person employed by that business, given that that Ticket was purchased on its behalf together with the outward Ticket.

What's interesting here is that it's the Conditions of Travel that provide this additional clarity: the Conditions of Carriage don't seem to have the same ambiguity.

This is nonsense, with all due respect. A return ticket is one ticket with two portions.

It’s like saying my employment contract, which is 10 pages long, is a document, but if I hold one page up then that’s also a document in the same way. It isn’t.

Your argument revolves around the fact that a ticket entitles you to make a “journey” (singular). Journey is not a defined term and is applied in a variety of contexts in the NRCoT.

The NRCoT is quite clear that the ticket is not transferable and it would be obvious to any court in this case why it would not be, given the fares avoided by the OP’s employer.

The NRCoT also uses the term “ticket” in the context we all recognise it to be, consistently throughout the document.

 

[furlong]

A return ticket is one ticket with two portions.

Yes it is, I agree. But the return portion also appears to be a Ticket in its own right now, as defined in that document. One doesn't exclude the other.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Yes it is, I agree. But the return portion also appears to be a Ticket in its own right now, as defined in that document. One doesn't exclude the other.

The fact they are printed TWO PART RETURN indicates quite strongly and irrefutably that they are two pieces of the same item. They are not two tickets - in fact the Return portion of tickets have easements that would mean to use the return portion in isolation is clearly fare evasion - for example, an off peak return Cardiff to Paddington is valid to return from Paddington after 0800. The first off peak train you could take on an off peak return or an off peak single is 0915, post peak. By using some one else's return portion you are evading the correct anytime fare travelling on that train. The fact it was bought for use by a company is irrelevant

 

[furlong]

The NRCoT is quite clear that the ticket is not transferable and it would be obvious to any court in this case why it would not be, given the fares avoided by the OP’s employer.
.

Not at all obvious I think - 5.2 permits some types of transfer and DaveNewcastle has already provided a historic example where something similar was also permitted. The discussion is whether or not this particular transfer might fall within 5.2 and this thread seems to be offering a range of opinions on how to interpret the contract.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Not at all obvious I think - 5.2 permits some types of transfer and DaveNewcastle has already provided a historic example where something similar was also permitted. The discussion is whether or not this particular transfer might fall within 5.2 and this thread seems to be offering a range of opinions on how to interpret the contract.

There is no question by anyone here that you can buy a ticket on someone else's behalf. What is being said is that you cannot use part of that ticket and then someone else use another part of the same. As such, the defence is invalid, much like the ticket in this case. Return portions are part of the same Out portion's ticket. The two portions form one ticket. If Person B uses Person A's return portion, the ticket has been transferred. It's as simple as that.
This ticket was bought on the company's behalf, and was used by 2 agents of the company. Thus, it was used by 2 separate people. Not one, and I do not agree, nor would a court I predict, that the "company" constitutes a singular person in this case.

 

[furlong]

The fact they are printed TWO PART RETURN indicates quite strongly and irrefutably that they are two pieces of the same item.

The definition is now just "any physical document".

If you're saying this is one document divided across two pieces of cardboard but if I only possess one of those pieces that doesn't count as a physical document because it's only half of it, then it doesn't count as a Ticket and I'm travelling ticketless. If it does count as a physical document in its own right then it is a Ticket and 5.2 applies.

Additionally, common usage anyway is to refer to each portion as a "ticket" in its own right - "Show me your ticket, please!" and I'd suggest that this might be what has led to the new contractual definition.

 

[furlong]

6.3 You must have in your possession a valid Ticket before you board a train..

Ask yourself, if you only have in your possession the return coupon and not the outward coupon do you have in your possession a valid Ticket ("any physical document") as required before you board a train? Doesn't this confirm this to be one correct and necessary interpretation of the term Ticket? And then under 5.2 a Ticket (same definition) may be used by any person employed by that business.

 

[furlong]

So if you'd asked me last week whether the out and return portions must always be used by the same person, I'd have said 'definitely'. But now I've started looking into it, I'm no longer so sure. The new Conditions of Travel seem to be moving away from that position, and that's perhaps a good simplification as in practice abuse is probably widespread and difficult to detect and there are probably already sufficient protections elsewhere against related problems like resale. Anything that simplifies or removes rules that are hard to enforce ought to be a good thing as such simplifications allow efforts to be refocussed on rules that are easier to explain and enforce.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes it is, I agree. But the return portion also appears to be a Ticket in its own right now, as defined in that document. One doesn't exclude the other.

I don’t agree. A Ticket may surely only have one definition, especially if the document attempts to define it in the Appendix. You’re basing your definition firmly around the fact that a Ticket can be used to make a “journey”. But journey is itself undefined.

An Off Peak Return is a Ticket. We can agree on that. An outboundary One Day Travelcard is also a Ticket. The difference is that although both permit a return journey, you say that because the Off Peak Return happens to be printed on two coupons that this Ticket would be transferable on one leg only, but the One Day Travelcard could not.

I appreciate the line of thinking but I am sceptical it would be accepted by a count (IANAL though). It seems tenuous.

 

[Dai Corner]

Can I clarify something please?

The accusation is that the OP was travelling without a valid ticket because somebody else had used the outward half.

Is it up to GWR to prove that the outward half was used by somebody else, or for the OP to prove that he used it? Short of tracing the ticket in question and making a forensic examination there seems no way of proving it either way.

Another thought. If the OPs employer admit that it's normal practice to transfer return halves between employees are they making themselves liable to action from GWR to recover lost revenue? This would obviously have to be some sort of estimate but could be very substantial.

 

[farleigh]

I don’t agree. A Ticket may surely only have one definition, especially if the document attempts to define it in the Appendix. You’re basing your definition firmly around the fact that a Ticket can be used to make a “journey”. But journey is itself undefined.

An Off Peak Return is a Ticket. We can agree on that. An outboundary One Day Travelcard is also a Ticket. The difference is that although both permit a return journey, you say that because the Off Peak Return happens to be printed on two coupons that this Ticket would be transferable on one leg only, but the One Day Travelcard could not.

I appreciate the line of thinking but I am sceptical it would be accepted by a count (IANAL though). It seems tenuous.

This area of the forum is dedicated to helping the OP (who is in trouble), not for wholly academic discussions.

 

[AlterEgo]

This area of the forum is dedicated to helping the OP (who is in trouble), not for wholly academic discussions.

Eh?

This is not a “wholly academic discussion” - the poster I am replying to is outlining what he believes is a potential defence. It is this we are discussing, and may be of help to the OP’s case. Please pay more attention.

Discussions about pricing and “fairness” are not going to assist the OP in any way and serve only to detract from the purpose of this part of the forum - to provide help.

If you’re going to be a nark, do it properly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact they are printed TWO PART RETURN indicates quite strongly and irrefutably that they are two pieces of the same item. They are not two tickets - in fact the Return portion of tickets have easements that would mean to use the return portion in isolation is clearly fare evasion - for example, an off peak return Cardiff to Paddington is valid to return from Paddington after 0800. The first off peak train you could take on an off peak return or an off peak single is 0915, post peak. By using some one else's return portion you are evading the correct anytime fare travelling on that train. The fact it was bought for use by a company is irrelevant

Ignoring it being someone else's ticket for now, that is (legal) avoidance, not (criminal) evasion. There is absolutely no rule which bars throwing away the outward portion and only using the return portion (or vice versa, provided the throwing away of the return portion occurs after the completion of the outward journey), even where that saves the passenger money.

The only thing you cannot do in that context is to use the return portion AND THEN use the outward portion. Use of the return portion of one given ticket invalidates the outward portion.

This falls into the same bracket as splitting, or using a longer ticket for a shorter journey where BoJ is permitted. The TOCs might not like it but it is totally legal.

There are many ways to do this kind of thing. A common one where there are asymmetric peak restrictions is for a weekly commuter to start their Monday-Friday commute with a single, then purchase returns from the destination back home, then finish with a single. No rule at all against doing that, and I imagine it is very common practice.

 

[rs101]

The fact they are printed TWO PART RETURN indicates quite strongly and irrefutably that they are two pieces of the same item. They are not two tickets - in fact the Return portion of tickets have easements that would mean to use the return portion in isolation is clearly fare evasion - for example, an off peak return Cardiff to Paddington is valid to return from Paddington after 0800. The first off peak train you could take on an off peak return or an off peak single is 0915, post peak. By using some one else's return portion you are evading the correct anytime fare travelling on that train. The fact it was bought for use by a company is irrelevant

If they're like the off peak return I purchased on Monday, then they don't all say TWO PART RETURN. They say "Coupon x of 2", that's all.

If I recall correctly, the ticket machine actually says "Printing ticket X of 3" while printing the 2 coupons and credit card receipt. So a none too helpful misuse of the word ticket there.

 

[rs101]

Someone mentioned carnet tickets earlier. Do the NRCoT specifically forbid their use by more than one person? National Rail's website is pretty clear that they're a booklet of tickets, each of which is valid for a single journey. Nothing there suggests that someone else couldn't use a ticket from my booklet ( http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/prb225ca2e6e40ef93d44bccd007b205.aspx ).

If it is forbidden to transfer tickets then surely it should be mentioned there.

 

[Haywain]

Amidst all this theoretical discussion, I have been wondering about what attracted the attention of the RPI to this in the first place. As the OP was travelling on a relatively early train, was the ticket being used an Off Peak Return issued for travel on that day (ie. dated 2nd February)? That could raise a suspicion if a period return was being used for a very short (timewise) trip where a cheaper Day Return ticket is also available.

 

[najaB]

Someone mentioned carnet tickets earlier. Do the NRCoT specifically forbid their use by more than one person?

No. Though some TOC's do.

 

[rs101]

No. Though some TOC's do.

Oh good. So buying carnets also involves digging deep into each TOC's websites to determine their individual validity rules.. not exactly customer friendly.

Just tried finding them on Greater Anglia's website and they're only available via their business ticket sales division - does that mean the public can't even buy them?