Route TILBY EXCL FERRY no longer exists

[Muzer]

Just for clarity (not about this but in general), assuming they would otherwise be valid as per the routing guide, tickets are only invalid on HS1 if they specifically say so? Or are Southeastern inventing their own rules about this?

 

[bb21]

If a ticket says Any Permitted, then you are permitted to use any route permitted by the Routeing Guide, in which HS1 is included in some of the maps.

Unless the ticket specifically says "Not Valid On HS1" or words to that effect, there is no ground to refuse a passenger travel. It is just another line with trains running over it.

 

[Paule23]

Leaving RJs comments to one side entirely....

How is it that an appeals service maintains that they do not know the rules ( " you're are correct...that it is not my area of expertise".)

The appeals service do not necessarily have to know the rules, I think the letter stated they could contact ATOC for advice on validity. If they do not know the rules and do not seek support then I agree that is a problem (how can they arbitrate without knowledge) but if they are sourcing information from a separate, independent party it does not matter if they do not know themselves, as long as they are consulting people who do.

I link this into my work as an auditor, I do not know every accounting standard in depth, but if I come across an interpretation I am not sure of, I consult people who know more about this than I do. You can't be an expert on everything (well, except RJ and routing guides of course!)

 

[transmanche]

Unless the ticket specifically says "Not Valid On HS1" or words to that effect, there is no ground to refuse a passenger travel. It is just another line with trains running over it.

And it's not as if Southeastern can claim they weren't aware:

For the avoidance of doubt, the CTRL will be included in the Routeing Guide in relation to Domestic Services, and fares set by both the IKF franchisee and other fare-setters will be bound by the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA).

Source: SRA Stakeholder Briefing Document for the IKF, Jan 2005.

(Although part of me thinks the whole thing might have been easier if HS1 had a supplementary fare system instead.)

 

[Muzer]

The appeals service do not necessarily have to know the rules, I think the letter stated they could contact ATOC for advice on validity. If they do not know the rules and do not seek support then I agree that is a problem (how can they arbitrate without knowledge) but if they are sourcing information from a separate, independent party it does not matter if they do not know themselves, as long as they are consulting people who do.

I link this into my work as an auditor, I do not know every accounting standard in depth, but if I come across an interpretation I am not sure of, I consult people who know more about this than I do. You can't be an expert on everything (well, except RJ and routing guides of course!)

...and as has already been stated, ATOC are not an independent source of advice on ticket validity, but a very biased source in favour of the TOC. The clue's in the name
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(Although part of me thinks the whole thing might have been easier if HS1 had a supplementary fare system instead.)

Once HS2 comes along, I think a TOC for "high speed domestic services" (ie HS1 and HS2 domestic services) won't be too bad an idea. This might make the prices more competitive.

 

[transmanche]

but if they are sourcing information from a separate, independent party it does not matter if they do not know themselves

The problem being that ATOC cannot be described as being 'independent' - their purpose is to represent the interests of TOCs. So they have a vested interest in penalty fare appeals not being successful.

 

[RJ]

The appeals service do not necessarily have to know the rules, I think the letter stated they could contact ATOC for advice on validity. If they do not know the rules and do not seek support then I agree that is a problem (how can they arbitrate without knowledge) but if they are sourcing information from a separate, independent party it does not matter if they do not know themselves, as long as they are consulting people who do.

I link this into my work as an auditor, I do not know every accounting standard in depth, but if I come across an interpretation I am not sure of, I consult people who know more about this than I do. You can't be an expert on everything (well, except RJ and routing guides of course!)

The ATOC is not a separate, independent party. They're funded by the TOCs and exist to look out for the best interests of the TOCs. That said, I hold a genuine belief that they are impartial where it comes to advising their members over the validity of tickets.

I'm not an expert on the Routeing Guide either - I make it all up as I go along

The problem being that ATOC cannot be described as being 'independent' - their purpose is to represent the interests of TOCs. So they have a vested interest in penalty fare appeals not being successful.

I'd quite confidently assume that ATOC are more about upholding principles of integrity. They don't have a vested interest in penalty fares at all and if they're consulted with regards to a dispute over validity, as far as I know they will advise on what is correct, rather than be biased towards either party. Looking out for their member's best interests also encompasses advising them when they are in the wrong - if their members aren't made aware when this is the case, they leave themselves open to being sued and penalised.

 

[yorkie]

Just for clarity (not about this but in general), assuming they would otherwise be valid as per the routing guide, tickets are only invalid on HS1 if they specifically say so? Or are Southeastern inventing their own rules about this?

Tickets are valid in accordance with the NRCoC, when it comes to the route you may take, the NRCoC refers to the shortest route, through trains, and routes shown in the Routeing Guide.

If a ticket is routed "via Gravesend" then the rule is that you look at permitted routes which pass through Gravesend. If there are none, then the rule is as described in our Guide.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The appeals service do not necessarily have to know the rules

So for each appeal they have to rely on someone else? That does not sound very sensible to me.

... if they are sourcing information from a separate, independent party...

RPSS (Revenue Protection Support Services) and IPFAS (Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Service) purport to be independent, but in fact are trading names of Southeastern (source). Do they count as "independent" of Southeastern in your view?

Southeastern are a member of the trade association ATOC (Association of Train Operating Companies). Do they count as "independent" of Southeastern in your view?

If the answer to both questions is "no", then I trust you will now understand the problem
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...and as has already been stated, ATOC are not an independent source of advice on ticket validity, but a very biased source in favour of the TOC. The clue's in the name .

There are some good people at ATOC who certainly aren't biased, but as an organisation then, by definition, given that the TOCs are members of ATOC, it would be difficult for them to claim to be truly independent.

Generally, if someone high up at ATOC tells a TOC manager that a particular ticket is valid, then most TOCs will accept that. But ATOC cannot tell them what to do, and some TOCs appear to disregard such information.

Also, Passenger Focus cannot tell a TOC what to do.

In fact, it seems there is no-one we can contact who can actually independently verify validity and tell the TOC to drop a particular action or accept a particular ticket.

Who is actually Regulating?

Certain powers that I would say appear to be regulatory powers, appear to have been devolved to ATOC, and that's not right at all.

The DfT also caves in to almost* all TOC demands when it comes to changing conditions, routeing etc.

(* with a few exceptions where there would be huge negative publicity, such as abolishing NRCoC Condition 19).

 

[Muzer]

Tickets are valid in accordance with the NRCoC, when it comes to the route you may take, the NRCoC refers to the shortest route, through trains, and routes shown in the Routeing Guide.

If a ticket is routed "via Gravesend" then the rule is that you look at permitted routes which pass through Gravesend. If there are none, then the rule is as described in our Guide.

I should have made it clearer - I do understand that. I was just wondering if *in practice* Southeastern had their own (incorrect) rules they were applying over HS1 validity, or if it's just some staff/some tickets (like the one in question here).

There are some good people at ATOC who certainly aren't biased, but as an organisation then, by definition, given that the TOCs are members of ATOC, it would be difficult for them to claim to be truly independent.

Generally, if someone high up at ATOC tells a TOC manager that a particular ticket is valid, then most TOCs will accept that. But ATOC cannot tell them what to do, and some TOCs appear to disregard such information.

Also, Passenger Focus cannot tell a TOC what to do.

In fact, it seems there is no-one we can contact who can actually independently verify validity and tell the TOC to drop a particular action or accept a particular ticket.

Who is actually Regulating?

Certain powers that I would say appear to be regulatory powers, appear to have been devolved to ATOC, and that's not right at all.

The DfT also caves in to almost* all TOC demands when it comes to changing conditions, routeing etc.

(* with a few exceptions where there would be huge negative publicity, such as abolishing NRCoC Condition 19).

Sorry, I shouldn't have said biased - but yes, certainly not independent.

 

[Wolfie]

The appeals service do not necessarily have to know the rules, I think the letter stated they could contact ATOC for advice on validity. If they do not know the rules and do not seek support then I agree that is a problem (how can they arbitrate without knowledge) but if they are sourcing information from a separate, independent party it does not matter if they do not know themselves, as long as they are consulting people who do.

I link this into my work as an auditor, I do not know every accounting standard in depth, but if I come across an interpretation I am not sure of, I consult people who know more about this than I do. You can't be an expert on everything (well, except RJ and routing guides of course!)

my bold and italics

ATOC is NOT an independent body! It is a trade association and SE trains are one of its members! So what you have here is an "independent" appeals body which is under the same ownership as a TOC using an "independent" adviser which said TOC is a member of. A number of posters have compared this with the parking tribunals system.

Make no mistake I can safely say, as someone who had dealt with a number of judicial reviews in central Govt with issues associated with the Human Rights Act, that at some point someone will question in the courts how this whole process can be deemed to match the requirement for a fair trial.....

SE trains say you are guilty, SE trains decide if they were being fair and SE trains are involved in the body which offers advice to those who decide.....this stinks more than a 25 year old kipper!

 

[yorkie]

I should have made it clearer - I do understand that. I was just wondering if *in practice* Southeastern had their own (incorrect) rules they were applying over HS1 validity, or if it's just some staff/some tickets (like the one in question here).

There are (or were) some people who incorrectly think that HS1 is special and that tickets are not valid via HS1 unless specifically routed "via HS1", but reports of such encounters are, fortunately, decreasing now.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said biased - but yes, certainly not independent.

Don't worry, I know what you meant, and I agree!

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Surely if it's restriction is via Gravesend or Tilbury then as long as you are going via Tilbury the requirement for via Gravesend is negated? And as there is no mention of not via HS1 it is therefore valid via HS1 without supplement?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[yorkie]

Surely if it's restriction is via Gravesend or Tilbury then as long as you are going via Tilbury the requirement for via Gravesend is negated? And as there is no mention of not via HS1 it is therefore valid via HS1 without supplement?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Whether or not "/" means "and" or "or" is a matter on which we do not have consensus.

I wouldn't attempt to by-pass Gravesend without first consulting with a lawyer (or if someone well-off offered to pay any legal costs!)

 

[RJ]

I'm done with that fare now - I've moved onto another ticket, which is unequivocally valid by the National Routeing Guide from St Pancras through to Canterbury West. I will be using it tonight on the 20:42 down service so hopefully peace can be restored.

I have read the email that has gone out to Southeastern's revenue staff. The two Tilbury routes are used interchangably and staff are being told that passengers are obliged to travel via the ferry when using either ticket. As it stands, this is not enforceable because such a ferry does not exist as far as the National Rail Timetable is concerned - which is officially where mileages must be taken from. Those choosing to travel by the shortest route therefore have to travel by rail only. I'm surprised this fact seems to have passed by those who were involved in changing the route, but it means that the newly routed tickets by default are valid to travel via Ebbsfleet International from either direction - although a change will always be necessary there. That is going by the interpretation that the slash means "and."

Before anyone says it, there is no obligation to transfer from Canterbury West to East, because there is no routing group containing both stations. Whether or not Southeastern like it, the ticket retains validity on their High Speed services and I will continue to use it as I see fit. If they want to waste their resources on futile attempts to get extra money out of me, or getting punitive measures to stick, that's up to them! No skin off my nose.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

A forward slash ( "/" ) is intended to be used, in the English language, as a way of allowing alternative words to be used, for example "and/or". To put it another way, it is not "and", nor is it an option of "and" or "or", it is "or".

 

[PermitToTravel]

A forward slash ( "/" ) is intended to be used, in the English language, as a way of allowing alternative words to be used, for example "and/or". To put it another way, it is not "and", nor is it an option of "and" or "or", it is "or".

I think you are referring to what is in formal logic called the "exclusive or" operation

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Logic/Southeastern

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[34D]

If they wanted to resolve this properly, the best way is surely to speak to the ferry operator, do a deal for inclusive tickets, and add the times to the NRT.

I'll get my coat

 

[talltim]

Am I right in thinking that in consumer law, ambiguity is resolved to the benefit of the customer? If the / is ambiguous (and it seems to be used variably for and and or on other tickets) then it can't be claimed to be definitively one or the other by TOCs

 

[Eagle]

That's the usual way it works. It's to stop companies saying "oh but we intended it to mean this and it's your fault for not reading our minds" :P

 

[CyrusWuff]

If they wanted to resolve this properly, the best way is surely to speak to the ferry operator, do a deal for inclusive tickets, and add the times to the NRT.

The irony there being that, until 1984 (presumably at the point Sealink was privatised), the ferry was run by...British Rail.

This, of course, begs the question as to whether there was a route "TILBY INCL FERRY" in those days.

 

[Scotty]

That's the usual way it works. It's to stop companies saying "oh but we intended it to mean this and it's your fault for not reading our minds" :P

It's a shame it doesn't work like that with women!

 

[34D]

Am I right in thinking that in consumer law, ambiguity is resolved to the benefit of the customer? If the / is ambiguous (and it seems to be used variably for and and or on other tickets) then it can't be claimed to be definitively one or the other by TOCs

One of the senior members of this forum is of the opinion that such consumer legislatoin does NOT apply to rail tickets.

 

[yorkie]

One of the senior members of this forum is of the opinion that such consumer legislatoin does NOT apply to rail tickets.

And some other 'senior members' are of the opinion that under EU law, consumer legislation does apply.

 

[RJ]

I received a cheque from Southeastern this week, which appears to cover the remainder of the costs I incurred when dealing with the dispute. This was the Penalty Fare I received at Stratford International on the 1st of April for using one of these via Tilbury tickets along the route. I was threatened with court and served a Notice of Intention to Prosecute. Given that the Penalty Fare appeal was successful due to "benefit of the doubt," it would appear that they are withdrawing all action against me. I wonder why.

In the meantime, a recording has surfaced of ticketing dispute with a Southeastern Conductor. This includes the driver of the train (confirming his role at 10:35) entering the saloon to get involved in a discussion regarding tickets. The train was delayed due to the driver abandoning the cab to talk about tickets and the conductor refusing to dispatch the train until the British Transport Police turned up.

For those wondering what happened next, immediately after the recording ended I put in a phone call to Customer Relations to complain about the incident. When the BTP arrived, I disembarked of my own accord and articulated myself to them. The conductor lost his temper in front of the BTP whilst I was on the platform, correcting the lies he was telling an officer who was taking a statement. The crew finally decided that they would continue on. Five or so minutes later, a High Speed service arrived going in the same direction arrived, which the BTP were happy for me to board.

If Southeastern have any problems, I'm quite happy to liaise with them about their staff using their powers to detrain customers and delay trains carrying other passengers in these specific circumstances - a conductor who was completely wrong, no aggravating factors and no revenue at risk. I'll also query them as to whether either action was in the public interest, particularly that of the paying customers at the time. I also happen to think that it's very bad form for safety critical staff to allow ticketing matters to agitate them whilst working trains. Name/address was volunteered so the option existed to defer the matter to staff with the ability to establish the validity of the ticket and follow it up.

I've worked a bus driver on inner London routes like the 35, where intending passengers threatened to end my life on more than one occasion because I didn't authorise them to travel without paying. Passengers who witnessed this often asked if I was ok. I laughed it off as I was more concerned about maintaining a good headway. So if I can dismiss* rude fare evaders and keep a cool head for the sake of doing a job where I'm directly responsible for the safety of my passengers, what on earth is the matter with this conductor - where are the people handling skills?

*Putting in a call to control at the first safe opportunity to allow them to warn other drivers/the police.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Your attitude to fare evaders as a bus driver is healthy and laudable, and you are correct in wanting more safety critical staff to act like that. It sounds to me as though the conductor made it into a personal issue at least at the point where he declined to take your name and address, particularly knowing that you work for the railways.

However, and I obviously did not hear the first part of this conversation and was not there, it sounds to me from listening to the recording that the conductor may simply have been misunderstanding that the National Routeing Guide is authoritative and canonical in defining the validity of tickets. Naturally, he believes that he is correct and that you are trying to pull a fast one, as would most people in his position, however I do wonder whether it would have been possible for you to convince him of the validity of your loophole, perhaps by trying to explain to him the illogic that is ticket validity on the British railway? (I of course defer to your far superior experience in handling angry revenue protection staff, and don't profess to know more than you, but am simply wondering )

 

[RJ]

The first part of the conversation was merely him asking to see the ticket just before that station stop, assuming it wasn't valid and saying he'd sell me a ticket.

I don't know what could be done. During the conversation, I had my laptop out, the relevant maps and the pink/yellow pages up and was showing the inspector. This didn't make the blindest bit of difference and on the rare occasions I got a word in edge ways without him talking over me, he was looking away from me, rolling his eyes like he couldn't give a damn what I had to say. Some people simply don't want to listen to someone who they consider to know nothing. What parameters the conductor used to judge this, I'm not quite sure. It certainly wasn't by what I had to say.

A "pay up or get off" attitude isn't acceptable in situations where the passenger hasn't refused to give a name and address. The industry has made efforts to introduce various measures to allow ticketing disputes to be followed up, with the need to delay trains or interfere with other duties.

As for being railway staff...some railway staff couldn't care less, simple as! I've been told by a number of ticket inspection staff that the NRG/NRCoC has no relevance to ticketing and that I have been incorrectly trained. Then they start condescending me with the usual diatribe about their years of experience with tickets. Quality, not quantity...

 

[tony6499]

Could you explain how the Bromley to London route is valid via Ramsgate ?

 

[yorkie]

He already did

The NRCoC informs us that we can take the shortest route, through trains, and routes shown in the Routeing Guide, and the Routeing Guide lists the following maps:

• LK
• LK+SL
• LR+SL
• VC
• LK+LD

The Routeing Guide can be found on the ATOC website.

 

[tony6499]

He already did

The NRCoC informs us that we can take the shortest route, through trains, and routes shown in the Routeing Guide, and the Routeing Guide lists the following maps:

• LK
• LK+SL
• LR+SL
• VC
• LK+LD

The Routeing Guide can be found on the ATOC website.

Still don't understand that one , as I thought the mileage or price paid had something to do with it.

But if someone was sat there with a laptop and showed me if I was the Conductor I would sit and listen and learn something, far better use of time than what did happen.