Prosecution for zero extra fare?

[rjholt]

Jeepers that feels harsh.

It raises an issue I was thinking about a few weeks ago. Back in the day, there were times when one was travelling into a station and something 'dropped' unexpectedly. The rule was always 'if you have a valid ticket into the station, penalties do not apply and the conductor must sell you a ticket'

I checked the current national rail conditions of carriage and this rule appears to have disappeared - is anyone the wiser?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's no need to go to the expense of Special Delivery, Royal Mail Signed For gives you proof of delivery at a lower cost but at standard delivery times for £1.10 in addition to normal 1st or 2nd Class charges.

Agreed. The only thing signed for doesn't give is a guaranteed delivery time/date as it travels with the normal mail.

 

[najaB]

Agreed. The only thing signed for doesn't give is a guaranteed delivery time/date as it travels with the normal mail.

As DaveNewcastle has posted you don't even need Signed For - a Certificate of Postage would suffice.

 

[PermitToTravel]

It raises an issue I was thinking about a few weeks ago. Back in the day, there were times when one was travelling into a station and something 'dropped' unexpectedly. The rule was always 'if you have a valid ticket into the station, penalties do not apply and the conductor must sell you a ticket'

I checked the current national rail conditions of carriage and this rule appears to have disappeared - is anyone the wiser?

There's certainly no rule like that and I don't think there has been in the past few decades. Perhaps before the introduction of Paytrains in the 70s?

 

[clagmonster]

Jeepers that feels harsh.

It raises an issue I was thinking about a few weeks ago. Back in the day, there were times when one was travelling into a station and something 'dropped' unexpectedly. The rule was always 'if you have a valid ticket into the station, penalties do not apply and the conductor must sell you a ticket'

I checked the current national rail conditions of carriage and this rule appears to have disappeared - is anyone the wiser?

In that position I always have a quick word with the guard before boarding, satisfies byelaw 18 and not been refused yet. Not that the traction is as good as it used to be.

 

[Mister Ed]

The discussion so far seems to have failed to answer a couple of points.
1. Why is the rail industry wasting its time persecuting a normal passenger when its loss of revenue had (s)he gone to a ticket office or spoken to a guard would be precisely zero? (A guard might even have said not to bother when he had substantial fares to collect further along the train.) It is purely the perverse incentives in the powers that the government has allowed the TOCs to implement with no proper ombudsman scheme to root out abuse of powers such as FGW appears to be doing here.
2. Reading to Bristol Parkway via Temple Meads is a valid route so the passenger could have been stopping short at Filton Abbey Wood.

 

[najaB]

...the powers that the government has allowed the TOCs to implement...

That's interesting, I wasn't aware that TOCs could pass legislation. Please tell me more.

Reading to Bristol Parkway via Temple Meads is a valid route so the passenger could have been stopping short at Filton Abbey Wood.

According to the OP the passenger didn't travel via Temple Meads.

 

[exile]

The discussion so far seems to have failed to answer a couple of points.
1. Why is the rail industry wasting its time persecuting a normal passenger when its loss of revenue had (s)he gone to a ticket office or spoken to a guard would be precisely zero? (A guard might even have said not to bother when he had substantial fares to collect further along the train.) It is purely the perverse incentives in the powers that the government has allowed the TOCs to implement with no proper ombudsman scheme to root out abuse of powers such as FGW appears to be doing here.

Because the taxpayer will pick up the bill?

 

[323235]

The discussion so far seems to have failed to answer a couple of points.
1. Why is the rail industry wasting its time persecuting a normal passenger when its loss of revenue had (s)he gone to a ticket office or spoken to a guard would be precisely zero? (A guard might even have said not to bother when he had substantial fares to collect further along the train.) It is purely the perverse incentives in the powers that the government has allowed the TOCs to implement with no proper ombudsman scheme to root out abuse of powers such as FGW appears to be doing here.
2. Reading to Bristol Parkway via Temple Meads is a valid route so the passenger could have been stopping short at Filton Abbey Wood.

The other consideration is that some TOCs even prevent staff from issuing zero excesses at all

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other consideration is that some TOCs even prevent staff from issuing zero excesses at all

I have never successfully obtained one despite asking specifically on a few occasions. Closest I ever got was LM agreeing to non-issue the short ticket and replace with the long one.

The usual approach before that (a few years ago) was that if it was the same fare it's OK. Which is clearly no longer the case.

But what this does do is create the ludicrous situation where if the fare difference is 5p, fine, an excess is issued, but if it's zero you have to buy an extra single costing several quid.

 

[najaB]

Because the taxpayer will pick up the bill?

I wasn't aware that FGW's prosecutors are paid by the taxpayer, tell me more.

 

[323235]

I have never successfully obtained one despite asking specifically on a few occasions. Closest I ever got was LM agreeing to non-issue the short ticket and replace with the long one.

The usual approach before that (a few years ago) was that if it was the same fare it's OK. Which is clearly no longer the case.

But what this does do is create the ludicrous situation where if the fare difference is 5p, fine, an excess is issued, but if it's zero you have to buy an extra single costing several quid.

You must be very unlucky as I have never been refused one that I can remember although Northern Guards don't tend to issue them and say it is fine to travel without one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You must be very unlucky as I have never been refused one that I can remember although Northern Guards don't tend to issue them and say it is fine to travel without one.

Rather concerning, given that this thread makes it clear that it isn't fine to travel without one at all.

Are guards on Northern empowered to give authority to travel at their discretion?

 

[miami]

Rather concerning, given that this thread makes it clear that it isn't fine to travel without one at all.

Are guards on Northern empowered to give authority to travel at their discretion?

Bylaw 17-3-iii and 18-3-iii

No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
...
an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a
valid ticket.

For the record I got a zero-excess fare a couple of months ago when I probably shouldn't have from an ATW platform person at Rhyl, to excess a partly used return of a Hale-Rhyl ticket to return to Altrincham instead. I've also had a zero excess fare on the return of a London-St Erth when I've wanted to start the return at Penzance - many years ago (probably about 10-12)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is as I thought. But what happens when someone given such authority reaches the barriers at Picc?

 

[Clip]

Which is as I thought. But what happens when someone given such authority reaches the barriers at Picc?

Im sure they can call the guard over to confirm this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Im sure they can call the guard over to confirm this.

If the train had terminated, yes, but the guard might be on his way onwards to Blackpool, Liverpool, Scotland etc.

 

[Clip]

If the train had terminated, yes, but the guard might be on his way onwards to Blackpool, Liverpool, Scotland etc.

And what if they are old or infirm or even some other vulnerable person or maybe a child????

 

[kkong]

The other consideration is that some TOCs even prevent staff from issuing zero excesses at all

Seems a strange position for them to take, I had no problem getting one issued at a ScotRail ticket office a few weeks ago.

 

[Greenback]

In my day, while zero fare issues or excesses were not exactly prohibited, the company expected an explanation for each one,. This was sufficient for a minority of staff to refuse to do them on the grounds that they weren't permitted to do it.

 

[father_jack]

In my day, while zero fare issues or excesses were not exactly prohibited, the company expected an explanation for each one,. This was sufficient for a minority of staff to refuse to do them on the grounds that they weren't permitted to do it.

Indeed there was a "support sheet" but in my recollection they were never audited. The sheets went with the demise of APTIS.

It was the neccessity to fill in the sheet (which you had to fill in your non issues on anyway) that put some off doing zero excesses full stop.

What people still even these days fail to grasp is that an auditor never sees the ticket you are excessing in the first place so what questions can they ask in a months time ???

 

[plymothian]

Certain zero-excesses mean the TOC loses all the revenue from the ticket; staff have to make a report, it gets investigated, and told not to do it again.

 

[father_jack]

Certain zero-excesses mean the TOC loses all the revenue from the ticket; staff have to make a report, it gets investigated, and told not to do it again.

That scenario would be more likely to occur surrounding an encode exchange done wrong or with the original ticket not collected as support..

Can't see how a zero excess would cost a TOC money. Goes back to GBs post of why clerks won't do them.

 

[kkong]

The person who sold me the excess at Aberdeen station (the supervisor himself) did make a hand written entry on an A4 sheet.

Can't see any detriment to ScotRail for issuing this zero fare excess as the change was to extend from Aberdeen-Haymarket to Aberdeen-Glasgow.

In fact they probably get a greater share of the fare after the excess as there is competition on the former route (XC, VTEC) but none on the latter route.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Can't see how a zero excess would cost a TOC money. Goes back to GBs post of why clerks won't do them.

Because the excess ticket could cause revenue to be distributed differently than the original ticket - for example if an excess ticket is valid on the services of a different company.

 

[father_jack]

Because the excess ticket could cause revenue to be distributed differently than the original ticket - for example if an excess ticket is valid on the services of a different company.

But the revenue from the original ticket has already been distributed. And a breakdown of zero remains zero.

 

[Greenback]

Indeed there was a "support sheet" but in my recollection they were never audited. The sheets went with the demise of APTIS.

It was the neccessity to fill in the sheet (which you had to fill in your non issues on anyway) that put some off doing zero excesses full stop.

What people still even these days fail to grasp is that an auditor never sees the ticket you are excessing in the first place so what questions can they ask in a months time ???

I suspect, but I don't know for certain and my memory is getting a bit hazier by the day, that the reason that we had to account for it on the day was precisely so that there could be something in writing for the auditors.

I do recall one day writing a note that my ZF increase of 1 on the APTIS machine print out was down to a zero fare excess and then noting details of the ticket. I don't recall ever being asked for any extra info on that one or any of the others that I must have done.

I recall that one only because I agreed to do it after a colleague refused, and we had words about it!

 

[Hadders]

Certain zero-excesses mean the TOC loses all the revenue from the ticket; staff have to make a report, it gets investigated, and told not to do it again.

But using this logic certain other zero-excesses might mean the TOC gains more money than they would otherwise have got from the original ticket.

I suspect these sort of things would balance out over the long term.

 

[miami]

But using this logic certain other zero-excesses might mean the TOC gains more money than they would otherwise have got from the original ticket.

I suspect these sort of things would balance out over the long term.

Surely the question is

"Does a customer need to excess the ticket to make it valid, and is it allowed by the existing contract"

If so, and the railway is systematically refusing to provide that, then surely the railway is in a major breach of it's responsibilities and should be heavilly fined and potentially have it's officers serve jail time, just as if someone systematically breaches the T&C for financial profit they also face heavy fines and jail time?

 

[Hadders]

Surely the question is

"Does a customer need to excess the ticket to make it valid, and is it allowed by the existing contract"

Agreed.

If so, and the railway is systematically refusing to provide that, then surely the railway is in a major breach of it's responsibilities and should be heavilly fined and potentially have it's officers serve jail time, just as if someone systematically breaches the T&C for financial profit they also face heavy fines and jail time?

Heavily fined and jail - blimey! Think this might be just a bit over the top.

 

[miami]

Agreed.

Heavily fined and jail - blimey! Think this might be just a bit over the top.

Just to confirm jail would be those who are making the policies to systematically cause financial gain by breaking the contract -- presumably fraud, not generally those implementing the policies.

I think prison sentences in the extreme case is valid. For example This chap admitted fraud by false, and had a suspended 16-week prison sentence.

Barnett admitted six counts of fraud by false representation between April 2012 and November 2014 and was ordered to pay back nearly £6,000.