Virgin rail 'bullies'

[Tom B]

those who want TOCs to be more lax on "buy before you board" policy need a serious reality check!

I agree with most of your post, but the "buy on the train" policy will have to remain until every station has a fully-functional ticket machine or office all the time!

 

[Flamingo]

The answer is if you don't like people don't work with the general public.

I did like people until I worked with the general public

 

[colpepper]

I did like people until I worked with the general public

Railway workers are people too. Same flaws, similar good points.

 

[yorkie]

And there you have the nub of the problem. If you take the time and effort to allow a few trains to go out, to get on the train you booked, or go to the ticket office to excess your ticket to change trains and pay the surcharge, why should Mrs Company Directior and family jump on an earlier train because they feel like it, as stuff like T&C only applies to other people.

But is anyone saying otherwise? Not on this forum I don't think!

The question isn't about whether people should be charged in such a case (well, unless there are exceptional circumstances of course, as detailed earlier with some well thought examples such as onward connections, but those aside...) but by how much. And on that issue, while we won't all agree on exact amounts or formulas, I think we can see a broad agreement by many that the current rules are too harsh.

For someone to state that the rules are not too harsh and that they should always be followed without question, is to say that someone paying £23 for an Advance in my WKF-DBY example should be penalised by being charged an extra £19 when the Anytime fare is only £19. The poor person in such a situation has already paid £4 more by not realising that an Advance ticket wasn't the cheapest (and this is actually easily done by an inexperienced user on the East Coast site!)

But you do make a good point that, just because the rules are harsh, doesn't mean they have to be followed to the letter, providing the TOC encourages discretion to be shown.

Fair application of the rules means that people who play by them should not be seen to be disadvantaged over those who can shout louder.

Agreed.

 

[Flamingo]

But is anyone saying otherwise? Not on this forum I don't think!

Sorry, lots of people are/

 

[Railjet]

Im entitled to my opinions. Nothing I have said is libellous. Most of is is fact, some of it is speculation, but all of it is fair comment.

Of course not:

And since we know beardie Branson would sexually pleasure a horse if he thought it would give him positive publicity, yet he refused to budge here, we can safely assume that this is an open and shut case of deliberate fare evasion.

Anyway, I would assume that a publicity seeking, fare evading liar (who either has or is about to have a criminal record) is probably not a good sort of person. I bet Im right about her.

as are most of the arguments in favour of Mrs Spacey, as they fail to take into account the effects on other people of her attempted scam, and the fact that if she got away with it, you are giving carte blanche for other people to keep trying the same scam.

so you are entitled to make a moral judgment about my character based on an offhand jokey comment, yet it is unacceptable for me to make similar judgments against a publicity seeking fare evader?

Fair comment? :roll:

Otherwise if you are so sure you are right, go and say it to their faces and see what happens. I think you would then need to find a very good (and hopefully very expensive) lawyer very quickly.

 

[yorkie]

Sorry, lots of people are/

OK, the OP did suggest a system of letting people off once. So making a log of incidents. This is, in my opinion, not feasible for so many reasons.

 

[RJ]

Why thank you Can I ask you to do my next review?

However, I do think that it is important for the TOC's to have a big stick in reserve, once it is used sensibly. Most people respond to a carrot, some need a stick to make them obey the rules. Some need a bloody big stick.

I have known only one Guard who played it totally by the book regarding ticket irregularities (full open, no excuses). They took a PHENOMENAL amount in revenue (and no, was not on commission), but caused so many other problems that it was questionable if they were doing the company any good at all. The number of times they were assaulted was also a record. This was recognised and commented on by many others.

Those of you who are not rail staff in revenue roles might be surprised at how often (at least with us) management tell staff not to be so overzealous, let people away with it, look at the bigger picture, etc. The picture of the evil TOC demanding their revenue staff screw every last penny out of the unfortunate passengers could not be further from the truth, in my experience (and talking to staff from other TOC's, I find the same).

There are certainly some managers out there who oppose Penalty Fares and the like. I've even seen one take money from their own pocket to compensate a customer who claimed to have been short changed by a TVM. Revenue protection falls under my list of responsibilities and I feel I'm quite fair in my judgements. I don't give PFs to everyone who comes before me, but some people clearly had no intention of paying and only came to me because they didn't expect revenue protection to be in place and were stopped by RPIs. Many people travel on expired season tickets, no ticket at all or with Oysters with insufficient funds to even start a journey.

In the case of Oyster PAYG and people who failed to validate successfully but travelled anyway, that's something which there's not a lot of excuse for. People know the deal with touching in/out and failure to do so not only causes them to be inconvenienced with the maximum fare, but also causes the revenue to be misallocated so some TOCs end up getting short changed. Someone not touching in at Feltham but touching out at Battersea Park gives all of that Exit Charge to Southern. Is it fair that SWT gets nothing from someone who's used mainly their service to complete their journey? It's in the best interest of both the passenger and TOC that passengers validate correctly. That's why I'm reluctant to believe the hysteria about so many readers are broken and feel that it's sheer ignorance on the part of people/corporations who claim that the Entry/Exit charge is a money making scam.

I have a job to do and I do what is considered to be correct in order to satisfy management and auditors and be fair to passengers. I use discretion when it's appropriate, but it's not always appropriate - whilst it would be brilliant customer service to let everyone travel for free, I'm afraid it isn't good for business.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree with most of your post, but the "buy on the train" policy will have to remain until every station has a fully-functional ticket machine or office all the time!

Of course it does, as I said people aren't at a disadvantage if they couldn't buy a ticket prior to travel.

 

[jon0844]

Precisely. Ticket buffs know how to exploit multi-ticketing and promotions and have the enthusiasm to make them fit their leisure time. Those deals are completely atypical of normal rail travel and give a distorted perspective on the value for money offered by train operators.

How do you buy tickets when flying? Do you buy a nice cheap open business class ticket, or search for the best price with a specific airline?

What's the difference?

If we want to axe airline style pricing, that's fine. Then let's have the old peak, off-peak and discounted tickets and nothing else.

That will make them all more expensive, but a damn sight easier.

(If you do succeed, don't expect much support from anyone than finds out you stopped their £5 long distance fares - in fact, be very afraid!!!).

I doubt the TOCs could afford it if everyone travelled for £10. People paying for turn up and go fares are effectively subsidizing the cheap advance fares.

No effectively about it.

Likewise, those peak rate commuters with expensive season tickets - or those in first class - are also subsidising the cheaper off-peak/discounted tickets.

When people argue that first class should be scrapped so there are more standard class seats, it's worth remembering that.

 

[yorkie]

...I don't give PFs to everyone who comes before me, but some people clearly had no intention of paying...

If it is that clear, then a prosecution would be the 'correct' action to take, so I would say you are being lenient if you issue a penalty fare in such a circumstance! (I thought I'd mention that in case anyone thinks I 'side with the customer no matter what' - this just isn't true at all!)

That said, proving it in court can be difficult, so it is understandable that PFs may be instead of an MG11 (out of interest, can you do MG11s?)

I keep an eye out for you when I'm at your station, last time I was there you weren't and we were unable to get the excess we wanted issued correctly.

 

[ChrisCooper]

My personal take on discretion would tend to heavily weight on the chance of being caught. If there is a good chance they were going to get caught, then it's reasonable to assume that they are not deliberately trying it on and it's a genuine mistake. Few people are stupid enough to commit a crime if they expect to get caught. On a long distance service with ticket checks on-board, it's reasonable to assume that anyone on an invalid ticket is going to get caught. On the other hand on services where ticket checks are not carried out regularly, particularly if not all stations are barriered, then discretion seems less appropriate, since it's easier to believe they did not expect to get caught.
In this case, since they boarded at Coventry and the next stop was London, they were always going to get caught.

I did get away with it some years ago myself. I don't know how but I'd managed to "loose" my ticket, so did not have it when the guard came around. Oviously they used their discression and let me get off at the next station without charging me any more, at which point I found my ticket (I think it had slipped into one of my card holders) and got the next train (I was on a saver or CDR). I was younger at the time, and did not look like the troublemaking sort, so that probably helped. Of cource I could have been really trying it on and just been going to the next station anyway.

 

[crewmeal]

What would you do with someone who illegally avoided paying a fare, signed an agreement to pay a fine, and then failed to pay?

He wasn't concerned about the money, he took things further because of Virgin's attitude to his 14 year old son, which I agree is disgraceful to say the least.

I suppose you would have sent him a a free 2 week adventure holiday...

If a 2 week adventure holiday as you eloquently put it and is part of an apology from Virgin then yes. Regardless of any situation you should not threaten children in this way. If we're talking about computer generated standard letters then a computer is only as good as the operator. The person who sent the letter should be reprimanded.

Slightly off track but it reminds me of the council that 'took' a dead person to court because of non payment of council tax. A relative took the summoned person's ashes into the dock and when called the magistrates were horrified after it came to light that some idiot kept sending computer generated letters which resulted in a summons.

 

[Ticket Man]

id just like to add my perspective on this.

I see hundreds of advance tickets every day and 99.5% of advance ticket holders abide by the rules. They are either regular travellers who know the system of they are people who have had the common sense to read what they are given.

All the changes proposed in this thread would only benefit the 0.5% who have not taken a quick minute to have a glance at their ticket. If some of the changes mentioned (such as excessing the fare to not be so harsh), do you really believe that advance fares would stay as cheap as they are. No way, it would increase the potential for abuse (i.e. i'll buy an advance because i can excess it if i go on another train but on the off chance i do travel on the booked service its a free discount) which will increase the price of these tickets and undermine the advance ticket structure to a point that i believe that TOC's would no longer offer them. (or at the very least reduce the amount available)

Should the 99.5% of advance ticket holders lose out for the 0.5% to have their way?

NB. The percentages listed in this statement are based on my observations and are only an estimate of what i see on a day to day basis.

 

[Flamingo]

465 Sleeper, good point. Like you, I see hundreds of advanced tickets, 99% of people manage to use them correctly, the ones who don't rarely come across as being unable to understand the system. Those that do come across as having some obvious problems (non-alcohol related) I will try to give advice to, rather than hitting them with a charge.

The ones that really get my goat are the ones who as soon as are challenged say "I'll get off at the next stop". They know what they are doing, and plan on leapfrogging their way to their destination. I always write the train they need to catch from the next stop on the ticket, so there is no "misunderstanding".

One colleague I know has gone one further, and hands the ticket to the platform staff, saying "Let them have this back five minutes before their train is due!". I've taken to doing this myself, and the look of baffled frustration on the dodgers face is priceless!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My personal take on discretion would tend to heavily weight on the chance of being caught. If there is a good chance they were going to get caught, then it's reasonable to assume that they are not deliberately trying it on and it's a genuine mistake. Few people are stupid enough to commit a crime if they expect to get caught. On a long distance service with ticket checks on-board, it's reasonable to assume that anyone on an invalid ticket is going to get caught. On the other hand on services where ticket checks are not carried out regularly, particularly if not all stations are barriered, then discretion seems less appropriate, since it's easier to believe they did not expect to get caught.
In this case, since they boarded at Coventry and the next stop was London, they were always going to get caught.

It really doesn't work that way, I'd say from experience that they are more inclined to rely on the lack of penalty when caught. The number of times I find ticket irregularities to be told "Well nobody else has a problem with it", or "I've never been asked for a railcard before". But that's a topic for a diffrent thread.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I use advance tickets a lot and have never had any problems. I have on a couple of occasions missed connections but that has always been dealt with easily by the guard

 

[jon0844]

I don't think being able to pay the difference on board (bearing in mind it will be the most expensive ticket) would encourage people to get an advance ticket then not bother to get their train. I cannot see any financial incentive to do so.

If people expect to be excessed to another advance ticket for that train (and if less, somehow think they'd get a refund) then that's silly. It's just that the ticket presented (if earlier, or obviously not so late that it could have been potentially used earlier in the day) has some value.

The only problem is that a seat is reserved on a train unnecessarily, but wasn't there a bigger problem where open tickets used to require a reservation on any train (when booked online)? If the other train is busy and the seats aren't occupied, I am sure they'll be used anyway.

 

[Ticket Man]

I don't think being able to pay the difference on board (bearing in mind it will be the most expensive ticket) would encourage people to get an advance ticket then not bother to get their train. I cannot see any financial incentive to do so.

there is an incentive for people who currently buy flexible tickets to buy advance. they would have the flexibility they currently have (knowing that they will only be charged for appropriate walk on fare) but would get a massive discount if they caught the train they booked.

TOC's would see their revenue shift from their big anytime products (where they generate most of their income) to their small advance products.

What does a company do with shrinking profit margins, it passes it on to its customers or if that's not deemed enough, it folds.

In short, we would have even faster price increases and more NXEC's and WSMR's (not the service but the fold)

 

[trainosaurus]

If we're talking about computer generated standard letters then a computer is only as good as the operator. The person who sent the letter should be reprimanded.

Slightly off track but it reminds me of the council that 'took' a dead person to court because of non payment of council tax. A relative took the summoned person's ashes into the dock and when called the magistrates were horrified after it came to light that some idiot kept sending computer generated letters which resulted in a summons.

Absolute garbage - if the person operating the computer is given a name and address how on Earth are they supposed to know that the person is a child? In offices where computer-generated letters are sent out mistakes are bound to happen, it's simply absurd to point the finger at an individual in this way. It's not the fault of the individual but of the system.

 

[northwichcat]

I've not read every post but it looks like some people haven't realised they were travelling on First Class Advance tickets and they were quoted £267.50 by the conductor for two Adult and one child First Class Anytime Singles because they were in FC without valid tickets for the service they were travelling on.

 

[jon0844]

Wow, every bit of new information means the money they were charged was even more reasonable!

 

[yorkie]

Still not enough info to judge this specific case.

Some Advance fares are only a few quid less than walk-on fares; indeed some (WKF-DBY) cost more.

Were they charged brand new tickets or an excess? (I can't look up the fares right now) Only if we can figure that out can we work out how reasonable the charge was. If we know the price originally paid and the price asked for, or the action and the price asked for, we can piece it together. If it was an excess then it was reasonable but the amount sounds too steep for that (unless their AP tickets were really cheap)

 

[EM2]

This is in the original story:

Her friend had booked tickets to travel on the 9.51am train, which came to a total of £95

Whether that's for all five of them, or just the Spacey family, who knows?

 

[Zoe]

Some Advance fares are only a few quid less than walk-on fares; indeed some (WKF-DBY) cost more.

Why would anyone buy an advance fare if it cost more than the walk-on fare?

 

[SS4]

Why would anyone buy an advance fare if it cost more than the walk-on fare?

Because they don't know better.

 

[Flamingo]

Still, admitting you were on the wrong train, and then suing for a full refund of the journey that you did make in breach of contract is just cheeky. If it ever does go to court, I hope it ends up in front of Judge Judy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPWYzG46OjA&feature=related

 

[Failed Unit]

Why would anyone buy an advance fare if it cost more than the walk-on fare?

Very easily done for return fares.

The situation is as follows for simple maths, return saver fare is £100

You go onto the website and get a bargin ticket for the outward journey at £30, you are happy but can't book the return until next week as reservations are not open.

You then go to book your return leg 2 weeks later (one week after it opened) but can only find tickets at £80, the walk on single is £95. You feel a donkey but you have paid £10 more than you should have done.

East Coast also has AP fares priced at more than the walk on single, but I have no idea why anyone would buy them (or why for that matter they sell them)

 

[northwichcat]

Were they charged brand new tickets or an excess? (I can't look up the fares right now) Only if we can figure that out can we work out how reasonable the charge was. If we know the price originally paid and the price asked for, or the action and the price asked for, we can piece it together. If it was an excess then it was reasonable but the amount sounds too steep for that (unless their AP tickets were really cheap)

You can't know the exact price they paid for Advances because Virgin offer different tiers of Advance tickets and it's possible the two adults had different priced Advances. Advance Singles for Coventry-London start at £9 while First Class Singles start at £37. Advance tickets shouldn't be excessed on board, they can only be changed prior to travel for a £10 admin charge. Virgin don't issue penalty fares but do strictly enforce the rule of no off-peak tickets or railcard discounts on board if you had the opportunity to buy at the station.

Both the 09:31 and 09:51 call at Milton Keynes Central so if I would have thought the conductor could have advised they alight there and do Milton Keynes-London on the booked service and phoned to inform the conductor(s) on that service what had happened.

This is in the original story:

Whether that's for all five of them, or just the Spacey family, who knows?

Here's the fare options for 2 adults, 1 child for the 09:51 on a Saturday in April:

Advance Singles: £47.50 total
First Class Advance Singles: £92.50 total
Off Peak Single: £100.25 total

I still suspect they had FC Advances are were made to buy brand new FC singles.

 

[Flamingo]

well, based on the figures you gave there for Std Class
£100.25 each adult, £50.10 for the kid, and £15 admin fee each for late payment

£295.60 by my reckoning (including admin fees), so £267.50 is less than I would expect, especially if they were in 1st.

I wonder what her solicitor is going to say in court - when they are taken there by Virgin for non-payment.

Someone up there keep an eye out for us, let us know when the case is coming up.

 

[colpepper]

I wonder what her solicitor is going to say in court - when they are taken there by Virgin for non-payment.

I'd guess their brief would go straight for threatening a minor with imprisonment.

 

[EM2]

So either the £97 for the original tickets was 4A 1C (STD) or 2A 1C (FC).

I wonder if it was 4A 1C in STD and they were in FC on the wrong train. Double jeopardy! Might be that the other couple paid up and the Spaceys didn't and that could well be why their penalty ended up as high as it did.