Virgin rail 'bullies'

[lm321412]

I am fully behind Virgin on this matter. You buy a ticket for the 0951 train to Euston, an advance ticket. Surely if you want flexibiliy you go for the Anytime ticket, not try and ride your luck on an earlier train with an invalid ticket. The train manager was right to charge them £270, it wasn't a fine, but probably the cost of 4x Anytime tickets. Running off to the paper too, "Marched them off the Train" such sheer exaggeration. "Marched off the train" would of been Rugby in my opinion, They travelled all the way to Euston. In this day and age a mistake costs i'm afraid. You don't go to the Cinema with a ticket for the 1830 screening and walk in the 1230!, You don't go to a football match with the ticket for "Man Utd" but thats next weeks game and your after todays. I'm sorry but they made the mistake and thats the unfortunate thing with advance tickets, they're simply invalid if your on the wrong train...

 

[Flamingo]

She'll have her day in court, no doubt. I wonder if the result will be as widely reported.

 

[SS4]

She'll have her day in court, no doubt. I wonder if the result will be as widely reported.

Call me cynical but that will depend on the outcome.

• If Virgin win no more will be heard about it
• If she wins then it will be the little guy being stamped on big business

Then again if she wins I suppose it's only right to believe that she was in the right

 

[jon0844]

Newspaper story, radio story, TV item...she seems to be very worked up about it.

I wonder if she's ever been to Guide Bridge.

 

[Flamingo]

I wonder if she's ever been to Guide Bridge.

Naw, no wheelchair

 

[syorksdeano]

I really believe that not the full story is getting told here. I've had problems before including getting on the wrong train with an advance ticket. When I got on the wrong train it was because the train that I got on was running late and the first that I knew of getting on the wrong train was when the announcement stated which train and the apology for the trains delay. As luck would have it the train that I should have been on was arriving on a different platform as we was departing. Anyway I explained to the guard and offered to get off at the next station and got told don't worry about it. If i'd have tried it on and said oh I thought that I could get this train then it would probably have been another story.

 

[Stigy]

‘We were immediately treated as though we were defrauding the system"

Well, you were, intentional or not.

That pesky little box "I have read and understood the terms and conditions" eh!

..."and had cmmitted a crime"


Indeed, and they had committed a crime, even if they weren't aware of it!

 

[Chapeltom]

For a start its Daily Mail, I say no more, sloppy journalism and a determination to make readers foam at the mouth, so they react and join a bandwagon of hate against whatever is the supposed problem.

The woman in this case broke the T+Cs of her advance ticket. End of. Its ticketless travel if you travel early like that. No ifs or buts, its a clear attempt to try and pull a fast one.

 

[Ticket Man]

just listened to that 5 live podcast, she does'nt come across as having anywhere near a cast iron argument.

My opinion of this is that this woman wants to flex her "company director" muscle. She seems to care very little for facts and regularly states the rules that she has broken should not apply to her. When asked by goldberg if she accepted she was in the wrong due to the clearly advertised restrictions of her ticket she simply turns around and says "not really". As had been said before in this thread, ignorance of the rules should not be a defence.

She then goes on to state rule 7 of the PF manual which says a PF may not be issued if you are travelling on the same route but at a restricted time. This ruling is for customers to have the right to purchase the appropriate fare to the journey they are making if their initial ticket is restricted. As she refused to purchase the appropriate fare that then left her liable to be issued with a UFN (which actually turns out to be the appropriate fare as Virgin don't run a PF scheme)

Also where the hell is this "guy" who puts all the people on the wrong trains. He is either every member of staff on the railway (myself included) or he gets around an awful lot!

 

[scotsman]

....When asked by goldberg if she accepted she was in the wrong...

Goldberg? Really? That's brilliant!

If the reporter is Goldberg, then she is surely Meg!

 

[Ticket Man]

Goldberg? Really? That's brilliant!

If the reporter is Goldberg, then she is surely Meg!

slightly less glamorous unfortunately, Adrian Goldberg of 5 live

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Goldberg

its worth noting in the honours section that he is ranked No.41 of the west mids top 50 most influential people

 

[Caped Crusader]

As a long serving railway employee (jobsworth) my opinion is based solely on heresay, rumour and mess room anecdotes and in no way reflects my experiences on a day to day basis.
The whole case seems to hinge on the fact that 'someone' told her it would be OK to take the 09:31 rather than the 09:51, that her booking specifically advised during the purchase process was the only train her tickets were valid for.
We need to track down this 'smoking gun' and under threat of waterboarding/rendition/being forced to travel on a Pacer for eternity, ascertain exactly what went on.

My guess is this:
A:Can I use this ticket on the 09:31?
B:No it says 09:51, but if you talk to the train manager before you board you might be able to travel.

OR My experience this:
A: When is the next train to London
B: Do you have a ticket?
A: Yes
B: Can I have a look?
A:Why? I just need the next train to London, did you not understand the question?
B: Yes, but I need to see the ticket to see which route/service your ticket is valid on.
A: Just tell me the next train to London.
B: The 09:31 from platform X

 

[yorkie]

Some of the comments are absurd. Mr Cheek in particular, I politely request that you consider improving your attitude towards others when posting on this forum? If you wish to continue write such posts, perhaps you could consider doing so on a different forum.

Anyway, on to the article. I read it (briefly) and I hope they win. Yes, they were in the wrong in terms of what the rules say, and yes they should be charged a fare (but what fare is fair is debatable). But just because the rules are on Virgin's side doesn't make it right. While reading the article I also came across this, and I would encourage anyone on the wrong side of ludicrous rules or laws to challenge them.

In the case of the Coventry-London journey, the full Anytime fare (taking no consideration of the original fare paid) is hugely expensive, and it will seem like a 'penalty' to almost any right-thinking person. Of course we all know it's not a Penalty Fare, but it's penalty fares through the backdoor and in all but name!

We have no idea what the attitude of the customers or the guard was. It is quite possible that, while technically in the right to charge them, the guard was rude and acted like a bully, as I am aware some Virgin guards are. If so, Virgin really can't claim the moral high ground here.

It is possible that, if taken high enough, a court may rule that charging a full fare of such a high amount is disproportionate (the cheapest walk-on ticket for that journey would have been a lot cheaper, especially if a Railcard was held!) and the lack of consideration of the original ticket may or may not have been tested in court.

I do hope it goes to court and I do hope a much fairer system results. Such as, charging the lowest out of: the cheapest walk-on fare that would have permitted the journey (on top of the Advance fare already paid) OR an excess to the full anytime fare (taking into consideration the fare already paid).

It seems highly unlikely that they would be "trying it on" as they argued over it for 90 minutes at the station. If they were in a rush to save 20 minutes they would not have done this.

 

[90019]

Occasional rail users who have no interest in ticketing minutiae are left out in the cold. Ticket prices are just too complicated and the accusation of evasion is disproportionate.

The complications of getting the right tickets, and high prices for flexibility which I can't afford, are the main reasons why I drove to Southampton rather than using the train.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....I do hope it goes to court and I do hope a much fairer system results. Such as, charging the lowest out of: the cheapest walk-on fare that would have permitted the journey (on top of the Advance fare already paid) OR an excess to the full anytime fare (taking into consideration the fare already paid)....

If it goes to court and she wins, all it will do is help to kill off advance fares and if you think that open fares would go down as a result of them disappearing, I'd wager you'd be wrong. In this instance, given she appears to be clearly in the wrong, the best thing for everyone else, is for this NOT to go to court or for her NOT to win.

....It seems highly unlikely that they would be "trying it on" as they argued over it for 90 minutes at the station. If they were in a rush to save 20 minutes they would not have done this.

If I and my other half had three others with us including a 14 year old son, neither of us would want to be argueing for 90 minutes with a constant response of "sign this and appeal". Infact I'd say that those trying to get away with it have nothing to lose by trying to 'wear down' the staff and get them to back down before it gets to an official level.

The article also says the 'threats' of imprisonment and £1000 fine came in a letter after the event, it does not say the staff on scene were inpolite or rude.

I'd actually like to know what she is suing for, as she says she doesn't "want their money". She sounds like a typical company director to me.

 

[gordonthemoron]

getting on the right train would be made easier if trains had unique numbers displayed on them, like they do in other countries

 

[mrcheek]

Some of the comments are absurd. Mr Cheek in particular, I politely request that you consider improving your attitude towards others when posting on this forum? If you wish to continue write such posts, perhaps you could consider doing so on a different forum.

how about you try another forum yourself?
every time these issues come up, you automatically side with the traveller on every occasion. these forums are used by many hard working and honest railway workers, so your posts are an insult to them!

 

[yorkie]

If it goes to court and she wins, all it will do is help to kill off advance fares and if you think that open fares would go down as a result of them disappearing, I'd wager you'd be wrong. In this instance, given she appears to be clearly in the wrong, the best thing for everyone else, is for this NOT to go to court or for her NOT to win.

I stand by my post, yes she is "in the wrong" but does the 'punishment' (for it is one, in all but name) fit the 'crime'? This issue was debated after Watchdog commented on how unfair the rules are. Have they been tested in court? Are they fair and proportionate?

I hardly think that my proposal of excessing to the full anytime or charging for a new appropriate walk on ticket would kill off advance fares, why do you say that and where is the evidence? There is still an incentive to book in advance, and still an incentive to get the right train. In this case, depending on various circumstances they may have been asked to pay in the region of half the cost under my proposal, still a significant sum of money, but rather fairer.

If I and my other half had three others with us including a 14 year old son, neither of us would want to be argueing for 90 minutes with a constant response of "sign this and appeal". Infact I'd say that those trying to get away with it have nothing to lose by trying to 'wear down' the staff and get them to back down before it gets to an official level.

People will fight what they perceive to be an injustice. It's a fact that many people do see the high amounts charged in these situation to be an injustice, as shown on Watchdog and as debated here after the programme.

The article also says the 'threats' of imprisonment and £1000 fine came in a letter after the event, it does not say the staff on scene were inpolite or rude.

I took the threats to be part of the 'campaign of intimidation' that followed, and let's face it threatening to lock up a 14/15 year old is ridiculous and indefensible.

We do not know if staff, or the customers, were inpolite or rude. However it is unfair that some people automatically assume the staff were polite and the customer was rude, particularly in light of the infamous incident where a Virgin guard attempted (but failed) to get a comedian arrested for raising money to pay for an elderly customer charged in the same circumstance as this family (ie, on an AP ticket on a train timed to run approx 20 minutes earlier than the booked train). As I said, it is quite possible that the family has a legitimate point in this regard. It is wrong for people to say with certainty that they do not, when they were not there.

I'd actually like to know what she is suing for, as she says she doesn't "want their money". She sounds like a typical company director to me.

Do you include your company director and other rail company directors in that? Or are they untypical?

 

[colpepper]

The complications of getting the right tickets, and high prices for flexibility which I can't afford, are the main reasons why I drove to Southampton rather than using the train.

Absolutely. I often think about getting rid of the car, then I think of the rail travel implications should a friend invite me to their place with less than a week's notice.

The fact I might be able to travel for £27.50 with six station to station tickets doesn't help when the chap at the window wants £197.00 to get me to my destination. Like I said, the railways are no longer about getting people where they want to go and when, but getting them where tocs want to be when they have some empty coaching stock available. That to my mind, isn't a transport infrastructure, it's an occasional alternative to the car they assume you already own if travel is important to you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the case of the Coventry-London journey, the full Anytime fare (taking no consideration of the original fare paid) is hugely expensive, and it will seem like a 'penalty' to almost any right-thinking person. Of course we all know it's not a Penalty Fare, but it's penalty fares through the backdoor and in all but name!

Spot on. If the case comes to court I hope it exposes the usury of anytime fare rates. They bear no resemblance to the cost of transporting an individual over modest distances and are de facto fines.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I stand by my post, yes she is "in the wrong" but does the 'punishment' (for it is one, in all but name) fit the 'crime'? This issue was debated after Watchdog commented on how unfair the rules are. Have they been tested in court? Are they fair and proportionate?....

Actually yes I do, but that is neither here nor there, the are the rules, end of. If I get on a train with no ticket from a station with sufficiant facilities I'm left with the full fare to pay. I fail to see why someone with a ticket for a train that they are not on should be any different. If I bought a microwave fully aware and warned that it didn't work, should I expect to swap it for one that does if I pay only the difference in price?

....I hardly think that my proposal of excessing to the full anytime or charging for a new appropriate walk on ticket would kill off advance fares, why do you say that and where is the evidence? There is still an incentive to book in advance, and still an incentive to get the right train. In this case, depending on various circumstances they may have been asked to pay in the region of half the cost under my proposal, still a significant sum of money, but rather fairer....

I said it would help to, if there is no incentive to keep to the conditions of the ticket or the conditions cannot be enforced then the is little reason for the TOCs to offer them.

....People will fight what they perceive to be an injustice. It's a fact that many people do see the high amounts charged in these situation to be an injustice, as shown on Watchdog and as debated here after the programme....

My point was that just because they were there for 90 minutes does not make them "unlikely to be trying it on" infact, I would argue the opposite to be true.

....I took the threats to be part of the 'campaign of intimidation' that followed, and let's face it threatening to lock up a 14/15 year old is ridiculous and indefensible....

I thought it was a usually thing to be printed on such letters, often saying something like "failure to pay could lead to...", which some might consider intimidation, others a warning.

....We do not know if staff, or the customers, were inpolite or rude. However it is unfair that some people automatically assume the staff were polite and the customer was rude, particularly in light of the infamous incident where a Virgin guard attempted (but failed) to get a comedian arrested for raising money to pay for an elderly customer charged in the same circumstance as this family (ie, on an AP ticket on a train timed to run approx 20 minutes earlier than the booked train). As I said, it is quite possible that the family has a legitimate point in this regard. It is wrong for people to say with certainty that they do not, when they were not there....

Well I haven't said either was rude or inpolite, mearly that the article does not say the staff were, despite some people in this thread judging otherwise. Whilst I note you did not say directly that the staff where rude or inpolite, I see in your post, implication that you believe they were based on what 'some' guards are like. If I said....

"...We have no idea what the attitude of the passengers or the guard was. It is quite possible that, while technically the passenger was right to feel it unfair and disproportionate, the passenger was rude and acted like a child, as I am aware some passengers are. If so, the passenger really can't claim the moral high ground here...".

...I would expect people to think I thought that passenger was rude and the guard was a saint, but I'm sure that thought never even crossed you mind, did it?

....Do you include your company director and other rail company directors in that? Or are they untypical?

I have never met, nor seen or read accounts of the actions of, my company director(s) and as such I cannot say if they fit into the 'typical company director' mould or not. It is quite possible for them to be in that catagory, but I wouldn't know that at this moment in time.

 

[Deerfold]

I hardly think that my proposal of excessing to the full anytime or charging for a new appropriate walk on ticket would kill off advance fares, why do you say that and where is the evidence? There is still an incentive to book in advance, and still an incentive to get the right train. In this case, depending on various circumstances they may have been asked to pay in the region of half the cost under my proposal, still a significant sum of money, but rather fairer.

If you could do that why would anyone buy anything other than an advance fare whilst they were still available? I suspect they'd sell out far more quickly. If people can upgrade to an anytime ticket for no penalty it's no longer a yield management system.

 

[jon0844]

I think a fair system might be to charge the full ticket price on the train and deduct the price of the advanced ticket, or perhaps add an optional 50p/£1 charge on the ticket price for insurance that covers you if you missed your previous train (but you would then only be able to make a claim with the operator after paying for the full fare, as it's not for a TM to deal with such claims).

While they were technically without tickets, they had bought something. Yes, the railway loses out because there are empty seats on another train, and they're now on another one (potentially taking new seats) but there is an opportunity to show some goodwill - and hopefully not every train is crush loaded for it to be a problem.

The excess would be excessive (sic) so it's not as if people would happily skip their booked train to travel on another, but if they did have to then they're not stung as heavily and should just pay up and feel lucky.

However, that's my idea for the future, and for now they were wrong and must abide by the T&Cs even if they're considered a little unfair. As long as people are happy with things operating like the airlines, they must accept the downsides (being penalised) with the good (the extra low cost fares).

 

[Greenback]

Unusually, I don't agree 100% with Yorkie's views on this!

There are really two issues here. The first is whether the family in question were in breach of the rules and if so, did they realise this? In my opinion, based on the evidence presented so far, and on the balance of probabilities, I think it is more likely that they did realise they were on the wrong train, and either hoped that they could get away with using the tickets they had, or that they could pay a very small supplement to travel on an earlier service. It seems that the customer still cannot admit that they were in the wrong.

This brings us to the second issue of whether travellers who are using an advance ticket on an earlier service should be penalised by having to buy an entirely new Anytime ticket for the journey. It appears harsh that neither an excess or a new off peak ticket will be offered by Virgin in these situations, but there do seem to be reasons why this is not the case.

I won't comment on the issue of whether the passenger or the staff, or indeed anyone was impolite or aggressive, as there is no way of knowing in any case. Similarly, we cannot know whether any member of platform staffw as asked if it was OK to travel, whether the tickets were shown or in what way the question was phrased, so I woun;t speculate on that area either.

As far as I can see, it is probably the amount of money owed on the UPFN that has caused the upset to the family, and as I said I should think they expected that they would be 'fined' a much smaller amount for taking the wrong train.

Whether it is right and fair for such sums to be charged is perhaps another debate for another thread, because it is clear that the customer broke the terms and conditions of their contract on this occasion, whether the punishment fits the crime or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, that's my idea for the future, and for now they were wrong and must abide by the T&Cs even if they're considered a little unfair. As long as people are happy with things operating like the airlines, they must accept the downsides (being penalised) with the good (the extra low cost fares).

Our posts crossed but I agree. I do think that the idea that if you board a train without a valid ticket means that you may be treated as though you had no ticket at all, needs to be looked at again. It seems to cause a lot of problems and generate negative media coverage for rail travel.

However, as you say, currently the rules are there and can be enforced, and people do seem to want trains to be more like planes!

 

[yorkie]

hairyhandedfool - my response were aimed generally at people who made the relevant comments, whoeever they may be, I'm not saying you were disagreeing with me on each of those points.

Deerfold - I am unsure of the exact details of this particular case but assuming that the requirement is for 4 adults and 1 child, and they held a family railcard and were travelling Coventry to Euston (and not e.g. Bedworth to Croydon or wherever), they would under my proposal be charged £113.40 on top of the tickets they had already bought. In the vast majority of cases there would be a significant 'deterrent' to not getting the booked train.

I do feel that the present system is unfair, and it is possibly legally dubious, although I am not a lawyer. Even if fully legally tested and found to be legit, it will always attract negative media publicity, and rightly so. The TOCs, including Virgin, are well aware of the media reaction to this after featuring in Watchdog. They know it will bring negative publicity, and should expect it.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I would remind people that if a passenger changes their Advance ticket at the ticket office before the departure of the first booked train they get charged a £10 fee (per ticket) and the excess to the next available ticket anyway. Is that so very different from what you are suggesting is done on the train after they have probably walked straight past the ticket office? I don't think it is.

 

[yorkie]

Unusually, I don't agree 100% with Yorkie's views on this!

But you do make the same point I am making...

I do think that the idea that if you board a train without a valid ticket means that you may be treated as though you had no ticket at all, needs to be looked at again. It seems to cause a lot of problems and generate negative media coverage for rail travel.

In that case we must agree to a very high percentage. Maybe not 100% but not far off

Perhaps I could amend it slightly to the cheaper out of:

1) An excess to the full anytime fare plus a £10 admin fee; OR
2) A brand new ticket (on top of the Advance fare already paid which would not be refunded) to the most appropriate ticket, with discounts if appropriate.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If you accept the contract then it is legally binding yorkie - no need for it to be tested. They accepted the contract, it was broken, and they get the punishment they agreed to.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

getting on the right train would be made easier if trains had unique numbers displayed on them, like they do in other countries

Virgin already do don't they? In the electronic display next to the doors - they just don't publicise it or take advantage of it in any way for the public.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Virgin already do don't they? In the electronic display next to the doors - they just don't publicise it or take advantage of it in any way for the public.

Surely the fact there is only 1 0930 train to euston each day identifies it enough?

 

[gordonthemoron]

not if the trains late