Partner couldn't travel - Two together railcard - UFN

[Al_45]

I'm hoping I can get some advice for a UFN appeal. Travel from Leeds to Kings Cross with LNER. Tickets were single advance tickets bought online.

I bought two tickets with a railcard for me and my partner. On the day my partner was unable to travel and I didn't realise I needed to do anything, as I'd overpaid rather than underpaid by having two tickets (paying a total of 1 and 1/3 with the two together railcard of what someone travelling alone would pay) and the only change was that there was now an empty seat. I know now that the rules say something different and they seem to trump common sense!
The "revenue protection officer" issues me with a UFN for a very large sum - despite there being no loss of revenue.

I'm writing an appeal and wondering if there is anything I can say or do? I appreciate they have their small print but it also feels fundamentally morally (if not by the rules) wrong to charge someone so much more money when there was no loss of revenue to LNER.

Any advice please?

 

[Titfield]

Please can you upload the UFN with your personal details and reference number redacted.

 

[Al_45]

I'm uncomfortable sharing my person details on a public forum. Is there particular information that would inform an answer?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is ridiculous that someone can't travel alone with both tickets from a Two Together railcard group, as as you say you're paying more, not less. However, the second person does have to travel, which means the UFN is likely on the face of it to be valid. Indeed you're probably lucky it was just a UFN for the fare due rather than a higher settlement.

Your only chance to get out of this is to post a copy of the UFN on the Forum, you should obscure any personal details/reference numbers, and we might perhaps find something wrong with it. But that isn't as likely as with a Penalty Fares Notice where things are very specific about what needs to be there and a lot are noncompliant.

I suspect you are going to just end up needing to pay I'm afraid.

 

[Titfield]

@Bletchleyite - my thoughts exactly.

 

[BurtonM]

OP was advised to post here on Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1kgv499/unpaid_fare_notice_on_train_because_partner/
OP has been repeatedly advised that they are in direct breach of the Railcard terms.
OP, you need to pay the UFN. There is no counter argument.

 

[jfollows]

I'm uncomfortable sharing my person details on a public forum. Is there particular information that would inform an answer?

Remove your personal details, as requested.
But https://www.twotogether-railcard.co.uk/help/railcard-terms-conditions/

4.4. Discounted tickets must be bought for both cardholders at the same time, and you must travel together.

It’s not ridiculous, it’s a commercial decision designed for specific uses. I have one, and I know how to use it properly, it’s relatively clear and although sometimes annoying it’s what it is.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'm writing an appeal and wondering if there is anything I can say or do? I appreciate they have their small print but it also feels fundamentally morally (if not by the rules) wrong to charge someone so much more money when there was no loss of revenue to LNER.

Any advice please?

The only advice I can think of in respect of your specific question is to write to them in very polite terms and appeal to their better nature to let you off the UFN - make it clear the other ticket was not used, the railway suffered no loss of revenue (indeed might have gained more revenue than had you been able to refund the tickets before use and bought a new one before boarding that train just for yourself - but this would depend on the T&Cs of the ticket so perhaps not worth mentioning that), and asking if on this occasion they could waive the UFN as you had 'no intention to evade paying the correct fare for your travel' (use that phrase FWIW)

Don't try to make it a 'morally wrong' argument - just see if they would 'kindly consent to reconsidering the matter on this occasion'

If you had both tickets to present to the inspector on the train then you might as well say so (because otherwise your partner's ticket could have been used to get through a barrier gate for another train which would be both against the rules and the spirit of the Railcard discount)

But be prepared for them to reject your request and thus be ready to pay the sum in full and quickly.

I don't think there is anything else I can think of to suggest.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes as others have highlighted technically this is the correct decision even if it on its face it doesn't feel fair (I certainly don't think it's fair).

I would suggest writing to LNER and politely explaining that you do now appreciate that the rule is cast-iron you both must travel or a new ticket must be purchased but, if they would consider, as a one-off gesture of good will cancelling the UFN on the basis that you actually paid more than you would have done had you travelled alone (and more than the UFN is for?) so LNER haven't actually suffered any revenue loss. But that you will certainly ensure you are in full compliance with the Railcard Terms and Conditions in the future.

But I think throwing yourself at their mercy is all you can do really!

 

[jfollows]

The problem is that there are cases in which people travelling separately on the railcard could save money, either by having two identical railcards or by travelling on different days with one railcard.
I’m not saying that @Al_45 was trying to do this, but theoretically there is a way of abusing the card if travelling separately were allowed, and hence the terms & conditions exclude it.

 

[Haywain]

I'm writing an appeal and wondering if there is anything I can say or do?

I would note the comments by @ainsworth74 above. There is no right of appeal as such but we have seen that LNER will consider submissions regarding what is, essentially, an invoice. There is no harm in trying.

 

[Al_45]

Thank you for advice. I'm sorry to hear the train companies value the rules over the spirit of the rules (to protect revenue) but I appreciate you all being straightforward and sharing your knowledge with me. It looks like the train company has people I over a barrel. I will try the appeal but am thankful for you all for letting me know the reality.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thank you for advice. I will have to agree to disagree with jfollows about it being ridiculous but I appreciate some people are focused on rule following over critical thinking about whether rules are justified.

I'm sorry to hear the train companies value the rules over the spirit of the rules (to protect revenue) but I appreciate you all being straightforward and sharing your knowledge with me.

What the rules are is what matters here, sadly. I agree with you that the rules are unreasonable (this is all very Ryanair to be honest), but unfortunately reasonable or not they are still the rules.

 

[dmncf]

How silly. I think the spirit of the rule, and what the rule is saying but in simpler words than mine is: you can't buy tickets using the Two Together Railcard and then travel separately.

I don't think the rule intended to say that if your companion is unable to travel, your tickets are void. Never mind. This will teach the OP not to pay the railway more than they should have for their ticket. I hope the nasty OP has been taught a lesson!

 

[Al_45]

How silly. I think the spirit of the rule, and what the rule is saying but in simpler words than mine is: you can't buy tickets using the Two Together Railcard and then travel separately.

I don't think the rule intended to say that if your companion is unable to travel, your tickets are void. Never mind. This will teach the OP not to pay the railway more than they should have for their ticket. I hope the nasty OP has been taught a lesson!

Thank you for the humour! It's lightened my mood!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2025 ==

What the rules are is what matters here, sadly. I agree with you that the rules are unreasonable (this is all very Ryanair to be honest), but unfortunately reasonable or not they are still the rules.

Thank you for all the advice! Yes it feels very Ryanair. I must admit it has made me much more likely to choose the car in the future when I have been trying to choose the more sustainable train.

 

[Haywain]

Yes it feels very Ryanair. I must admit it has made me much more likely to choose the car in the future when I have been trying to choose the more sustainable train.

Perhaps you should wait and see how they respond before making judgements?

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you for the humour! It's lightened my mood!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2025 ==


Thank you for all the advice! Yes it feels very Ryanair. I must admit it has made me much more likely to choose the car in the future when I have been trying to choose the more sustainable train.

You may want to post your draft letter to them here for people to check it to help get it as good as it can be ahead of sending it. If you think that would be helpful.

 

[Al_45]

Perhaps you should wait and see how they respond before making judgements?

I'm afraid that is based on the way the revenue protection officer on the train behaved. He was very obnixous for about an hour. I'm not in any hurry to repeat that experience and I don't think any of us can promise to know every rule inside out and never to make a genuine error again.

 

[jfollows]

Agreeing to disagree is absolutely fine, but I do think there are underlying reasons for the rules and restrictions. Maybe they’re silly or nonsensical, for sure, but there is a danger that by relaxing them an opportunity for others would be opened to pay less which the railways don’t want.

And there is no excuse for obnoxious behaviour, for sure. If you can’t be polite when enforcing the rules, don’t do the job.

 

[Al_45]

Agreeing to disagree is absolutely fine, but I do think there are underlying reasons for the rules and restrictions. Maybe they’re silly or nonsensical, for sure, but there is a danger that by relaxing them an opportunity for others would be opened to pay less which the railways don’t want.

And there is no excuse for obnoxious behaviour, for sure. If you can’t be polite when enforcing the rules, don’t do the job.

Agreed. I appreciate people taking time to explain these other aspects of the rules and why they might have been invented. It's frustrating that there isn't room in the system for a human to consider the actual circumstances and consider the why behind the rule (protecting revenue) when enforcing it. I tried for a really long time with the guy, being polite and appreciate of the position he was in but by the end it was too much for me. He was bellowing as well which gave the impression to the whole carriage that I was a fare dodger and I found this upsetting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a slightly odd figure (undiscounted fares are priced in 10p multiples, so a 5p on the end is a bit strange).

What was the cost of the individual tickets each? It looks like he may have actually done you a favour (sort of) and charged an excess on one of the tickets rather than a full new ticket? I assume it was a peak-time service?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2025 ==

Agreeing to disagree is absolutely fine, but I do think there are underlying reasons for the rules and restrictions. Maybe they’re silly or nonsensical, for sure, but there is a danger that by relaxing them an opportunity for others would be opened to pay less which the railways don’t want.

And there is no excuse for obnoxious behaviour, for sure. If you can’t be polite when enforcing the rules, don’t do the job.

Equally a lot of people say revenue were impolite when they were just telling things how they are. Nobody likes being asked to pay for something they've already paid for. I'd imagine everyone who's ever been thrown out of a pub would say the bouncer was rude, but they probably mostly weren't, just matter-of-fact.

 

[Gloster]

I am afraid that I have a rather brutal attitude to such situations. The railway has given your an option which is to your, and their, financial advantage. They are legally bound to fulfil their part of the bargain and I do not think that it is unreasonable that they expect you to fulfil the conditions of the offer that they have made clear to you before hand. You could take them to court if they somehow reneged on their offer, so they are not, in my opinion, being unreasonable in imposing the due penalty if you have failed to fulfil your part of the bargain.

I'm afraid that is based on the way the revenue protection officer on the train behaved. He was very obnixous for about an hour. I'm not in any hurry to repeat that experience and I don't think any of us can promise to know every rule inside out and never to make a genuine error again.

Did it take about an hour to sort this out?

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes as others have highlighted technically this is the correct decision even if it on its face it doesn't feel fair (I certainly don't think it's fair).

I would suggest writing to LNER and politely explaining that you do now appreciate that the rule is cast-iron you both must travel or a new ticket must be purchased but, if they would consider, as a one-off gesture of good will cancelling the UFN on the basis that you actually paid more than you would have done had you travelled alone (and more than the UFN is for?) so LNER haven't actually suffered any revenue loss. But that you will certainly ensure you are in full compliance with the Railcard Terms and Conditions in the future.

But I think throwing yourself at their mercy is all you can do really!

I agree with this approach. There’s not been any revenue loss.

 

[Al_45]

I've learnt a new skill today - editing a photo! Sorry it took so long - here is the UFN.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your personal details are still visible on that. I think you must have uploaded the wrong one.

 

[Al_45]

I am afraid that I have a rather brutal attitude to such situations. The railway has given your an option which is to your, and their, financial advantage. They are legally bound to fulfil their part of the bargain and I do not think that it is unreasonable that they expect you to fulfil the conditions of the offer that they have made clear to you before hand. You could take them to court if they somehow reneged on their offer, so they are not, in my opinion, being unreasonable in imposing the due penalty if you have failed to fulfil your part of the bargain.



Did it take about an hour to sort this out?

You're entitled to your view. I am self-employed and often have a choice between enforcing the exact letter of the terms and conditions to the spirit of them and I choose the spirit every single time as it's the human thing to do - especially when LNER got more rather than less revenue! I appreciate some other people are much more focussed on rules and value this above all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2025 ==

Your personal details are still visible on that. I think you must have uploaded the wrong one.

Thank you!!! I did NOT learn a new skill today - oh dear, I am not good at this!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2025 ==

That's a slightly odd figure (undiscounted fares are priced in 10p multiples, so a 5p on the end is a bit strange).

What was the cost of the individual tickets each? It looks like he may have actually done you a favour (sort of) and charged an excess on one of the tickets rather than a full new ticket? I assume it was a peak-time service?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2025 ==



Equally a lot of people say revenue were impolite when they were just telling things how they are. Nobody likes being asked to pay for something they've already paid for. I'd imagine everyone who's ever been thrown out of a pub would say the bouncer was rude, but they probably mostly weren't, just matter-of-fact.

Yes, he originally said it would be £150 but then said he could take a little money off it from one ticket after decocting an amount for changes.
What do you think of the text/appeal letter?

I appreciate your point about bouncers. Of course it is just my opinion (and he is not here to defend himself, hence why I don't given any details about him) and likely coloured by the situation but it has left me feeling very wary of train travel.

 

[Turtle]

Yes as others have highlighted technically this is the correct decision even if it on its face it doesn't feel fair (I certainly don't think it's fair).

I would suggest writing to LNER and politely explaining that you do now appreciate that the rule is cast-iron you both must travel or a new ticket must be purchased but, if they would consider, as a one-off gesture of good will cancelling the UFN on the basis that you actually paid more than you would have done had you travelled alone (and more than the UFN is for?) so LNER haven't actually suffered any revenue loss. But that you will certainly ensure you are in full compliance with the Railcard Terms and Conditions in the future.

But I think throwing yourself at their mercy is all you can do really!

Agreed. It's all you can do. Unfortunately, the Railway, as an institution, is set up in such a way that it is able to ignore the concept of equity.

 

[185143]

That's a slightly odd figure (undiscounted fares are priced in 10p multiples, so a 5p on the end is a bit strange).

What was the cost of the individual tickets each? It looks like he may have actually done you a favour (sort of) and charged an excess on one of the tickets rather than a full new ticket? I assume it was a peak-time service?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2025 ==



Equally a lot of people say revenue were impolite when they were just telling things how they are. Nobody likes being asked to pay for something they've already paid for. I'd imagine everyone who's ever been thrown out of a pub would say the bouncer was rude, but they probably mostly weren't, just matter-of-fact.

I'm going to be the exception to that.

Got asked to leave the Wetherspoons in Teignmouth as I'd fell asleep. I was still adjusting off night shifts and I'd had an extremely long day (both travelling and drinking) as it was.

It was the regular pub staff as opposed to the non existent bouncers in fairness, but they woke me up and said "I think your night's over". I agreed, fair enough, and left. Simple as that.

I've seen people get kicked out by bouncers and yes, the majority of time they have been pretty polite and respectful. And to be fair, in my experience, it's pretty 50/50 how they take it at the time. Of course, approaching a group of drunk people with a tone along the lines of "Right... OUT!" is probably going to get a bad response.

 

[Hadders]

I'm uncomfortable sharing my person details on a public forum. Is there particular information that would inform an answer?

We don't need to see any personal details or case reference numbers, these should be redacted. Seeing the paperwork that has been issued helps us to provide the best advice.

 

[AdamWW]

The problem is that there are cases in which people travelling separately on the railcard could save money, either by having two identical railcards or by travelling on different days with one railcard.
I’m not saying that @Al_45 was trying to do this, but theoretically there is a way of abusing the card if travelling separately were allowed, and hence the terms & conditions exclude it.

Very railway, isn't it?

It's almost certainly not an attempt at fare evasion, but theoretically it might be so here's a large bill.

And presumably this is only an issue with walk-up tickets. How would you abuse the railcard like this with advances?

But if the railway wanted to be reasonable, and if requiring both tickets to be shown rather than both passengers actually being present wasn't considered enough of a safeguard, why not allow a pair of tickets with a two together railcard to be swapped or excessed to a non discounted ticket for one person?

They're still up on the deal.