When using an advance ticket, do you have to use it EXACTLY as specified....

[ralphchadkirk]

Interesting, you are suggesting they are unlawful then? If they are fines, they are unlawful.

Could you explain how fines are unlawful? Otherwise car-parks and the police are in deep trouble!

And when you say "not adhering to the conditions", that's a huge cop-out besides many conditions not being adhered to (e.g. being off route, or on a time restricted train on a restricted ticket for which that train is not valid) must result in an excess (or new ticket) and not a penalty fare.

So one can say that the rail companies are making it easier for people to get the correct ticket rather than be fined/taken to court?

 

[PTF62]

To continue the question I asked on the other thread that was locked with the request to continue the discussion here -

Is there any reason why the couple could not have bought a normal £3.40 Eastleigh to Southampton ticket, to complete their 'journey'

I understand that the Megatrain ticket was valid under the terms of the National Conditions of Carriage between London Waterloo and Southampton with no 'break of journey allowed'.

But a 'break of journey' is specifically defined in the NCOC as leaving the train station. Merely getting off the train at Eastleigh is not a 'break of journey'.

Therefore if you reach Southampton without leaving railway property, you have not had a 'break of journey'.

So you have not invalidated your London Waterloo to Southampton Megatrain ticket.

The problem is that you just don't have a valid Eastleigh to Southampton ticket to complete your journey.

Hence the question, could they have just asked the ticket inspector to sell them a £3.40 Eastleigh to Southampton ticket?

 

[yorksrob]

So if I made my seat available a little earlier than the intended destination then they might benefit in the same way, yes?

Yes indeed - I would agree with that

With regard to the Mega-train couple at Eastleigh, I do find the situation with these tickets concerning as it does seem that passengers in settlements such as Eastleigh are rather arbitrarily discriminated against.

I have no objection to the train provider stimulating traffic on certain trains by offering cheap advance fares on the London - Southampton corridoor, but as the provider of a vital public service should it really be allowed to get away with telling Eastleigh residents to go suck eggs? At the very least they should have the same opportunity of getting a cheaper fare as Southamptoners, and if the CoC's were ammended to specifically allow stopping and starting short, this would in effect be the case with any cheaper fares.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

They agreed to these terms and conditions, they have no cause for complaint when they chose to break them.

I completely agree, though it's a bit of a PR disaster when you consider what the travelling public at large will make of it!

And I agree too. It will be a "media disaster".

But the real test will be :- to what extent do the media bother with this story?
I'll be interested to know whether it just fades away or develops into a wider story.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Absolutely absurd, they've not set out to cheat the system or rob revenue from the railways.

Except that this couple come from Bishopstoke which is less than a mile from Eastleigh station, so why were they buying tickets to Southampton if they never had any intention of going there?



The story won't develop into anything as there will always be people who try to cheat the system and from time to time they get their comeuppance, of these people there will be an even smaller minority who go to the media about it a few times a year. People read the one sided story, believe it to be 100% accurate, moan about 'rip-off Britain', get on with the rest of their day and then moan about a different 'jobsworth' the following day.

 

[EM2]

In answer to PTF 62, the following applies to a Megatrain ticket

If travelling with megatrain.com the choice of trains are limited and pre-determined.

Bookings are only valid on the journey(s) and places stated

and also

Rail travel is undertaken under the National Rail Conditions of Carriage as amended by these terms.

The journey referred to is a journey from Waterloo to Southampton. Changing trains at Eastleigh is NOT completing that journey, as you are taking one of the non-pre-determined trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

Except that this couple come from Bishopstoke which is less than a mile from Eastleigh station, so why were they buying tickets to Southampton if they never had any intention of going there?

On the SWT main line, Advance tickets are only available beyond Brockenhurst, and Megatrain is the next best option, but is only available at Southampton Central, Bournemouth and Weymouth.

That's why...

 

[djh1986]

What everyone forgets is that most of us on this forum are railway geeks and understand these things. The majority of the travelling public don't.

These stories simply make the railway out to be a bureaucratic world of it's own policed by SS type jobsworths which simply puts people in their cars instead of on the railways. Yes they broke the rules of the ticket, but so would most people, a slap on the wrist and a quick explanation of the ticket rules would have sufficed. Again, the majority of people would be glad of the advice.

The couple didn't try and cheat anyone out of revenue, they simply did what nine out of ten people would do if meeting friends and think nothing of it. I'd be amazed if a couple would go to the media if they got caught trying to pull a stroke.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Try buying a bargain basement air fare to Switzerland and then flying to France with it!

You'd struggle to get off in France on a plane bound for Switzerland without endangering your life.

 

[PTF62]

The journey referred to is a journey from Waterloo to Southampton. Changing trains at Eastleigh is NOT completing that journey, as you are taking one of the non-pre-determined trains.

Whilst I consider your points, can you explain why they were charged a Penalty Fare.

Ending a journey early falls within section 16 of the NCOC, which explains that it should be dealt with by an excess fare, which is calculated as the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket(s) available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to start, break and resume, or end your journey at that station on the service(s) you have used.

 

[Matt Taylor]

What everyone forgets is that most of us on this forum are railway geeks and understand these things. The majority of the travelling public don't.

These stories simply make the railway out to be a bureaucratic world of it's own policed by SS type jobsworths.

The couple didn't try and cheat anyone out of revenue, they simply did what nine out of ten people would do if meeting friends and think nothing of it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Firstly I don't think anyone can honestly believe they story about 'getting off to meet friends for lunch', they were getting off because it was the closest station to where they live.

They ticked the box to say they agreed to the terms and conditions, they then took it upon themselves to ignore those T+Cs (specifically condition 4 as already discussed in this thread) and expected the railway to honour it's part of the bargain. Basically they entered into a contract, reneged on their part of the contract but still expected the other party to keep to the rules. You don't need to be a 'railway geek' to understand that this kind of behaviour comes with risks.

And again the word 'jobsworth' rears it's ugly head, it seems to be the insult of choice for people who think they are above the rules.

 

[djh1986]

The T&Cs are irrelevant, everyone agrees to T&Cs every day of their life and breaks them!

Common sense needs to be used. The railways try and promote these discount tickets and then behave like bullies when the rules are broken even though they've lost no money by this couples action.

The image of the railways is the issue here for me, the breaking the terms of the ticket isn't the main issue. Look at the comments on that story, the general public are appalled by these stories.

Jobsworth is a very apt word for someone who charges someone three figures for having a valid ticket for that stretch of line. A warning and friendly explanation of the rules would have been correct, discretion is the key, something that I find is lacking in RPIs in general.

 

[Matt Taylor]

T+Cs are entirely relevant, otherwise why bother having them at all, perhaps we should not set speed limits seeing as everyone speeds a little from time to time?

The general public would be a little less appalled if they were in full posession of the facts, furthermore I will add that this matter is being discussed on a non-railway forum I frequent and the general consensus is that these two got what was coming to them.

You can talk about jobsworths but until you know facts of this situation (not the media spin) I don't think you are can make a judgement on any of the staff involved. Can you give a categorical guarantee that this couple had not previously been warned and given a friendly reminder?

 

[djh1986]

T+Cs are entirely relevant, otherwise why bother having them at all, perhaps we should not set speed limits seeing as everyone speeds a little from time to time?

The general public would be a little less appalled if they were in full posession of the facts, furthermore I will add that this matter is being discussed on a non-railway forum I frequent and the general consensus is that these two got what was coming to them.

Speed Limits are there to protect lives. The T&Cs of an advance Megatrain ticket are not. As one commenter of the article writes, what happens if you leave the train as you're feeling unwell before your destination? Are you liable for an absurd penalty fare then too?

Nobody is in full possession of the facts, yourself included but on the face of it, the story reads very badly in the press and is yet another kick in the teeth for public transport on the day of severe industrial action affecting the capital.

If I wasn't a regular traveller on the railways and had a theatre trip planned to London in the coming weeks, I know how I'd choose to get there and it wouldn't be by train!

 

[Flamingo]

The T&Cs are irrelevant, everyone agrees to T&Cs every day of their life and breaks them!

Common sense needs to be used. The railways try and promote these discount tickets and then behave like bullies when the rules are broken even though they've lost no money by this couples action.

The image of the railways is the issue here for me, the breaking the terms of the ticket isn't the main issue. Look at the comments on that story, the general public are appalled by these stories.

Jobsworth is a very apt word for someone who charges someone three figures for having a valid ticket for that stretch of line. A warning and friendly explanation of the rules would have been correct, discretion is the key, something that I find is lacking in RPIs in general.

The railway would have lost money. These people wished to travel from to Eastleigh, which costs £27 each off-peak. They purchased two tickets that cost £6 each, meaning that if they had got away with it, they would have cost the railway £21 each.

Or is it OK as "the train was going there anyway"?

If it was the other way around and a train is delayed so passengers can't get home, can the railway ignore it's side of the T&C's and say "the last train is not running past Basingstoke, if you want to get to Southampton tough, we're going to break the T&C that say we have to get you to your destination"?

Why does a certain type of passenger think that "discretion" means that nobody should have to have consequences to their decisions. I've lost count of the number of passengers who say "I thought you can use your discretion" when what they mean is "I'm special, can't you see that". My usual reply is "We can, you haven't said anything yet that justifies me making an exception for you". If it's justified, then an exception will be made, but the usual litany of excuses with advanced tickets involving late or early meetings and flights, or "the man on the platform" or "My railcard is in my other handbag" don't cut any ice at this stage.

(As an aside, if I ever find out who that mysterious man on the platform is, I'm going to give him a bloody good kicking!)

 

[Matt Taylor]

Nobody is in full possession of the facts, yourself included.

Are you sure about that?

 

[djh1986]

The railway would have lost money. These people wished to travel from to Eastleigh, which costs £27 each off-peak. They purchased two tickets that cost £6 each, meaning that if they had got away with it, they would have cost the railway £21 each.

Or is it OK as "the train was going there anyway"?

Yes it is. If I take a library book out for a month and take it back after two days, the library have done well.

SWT in this case have actually saved money, there are two spare empty seats between Eastleigh and their destination, they won't be using facilities onboard for as long etc.

What the majority of people don't understand is why travelling a shorter distance costs more money. A very simple argument. Having a blinkered Railways T&Cs view of things simply doesn't wash with the public.

 

[yorkie]

Could you explain how fines are unlawful? Otherwise car-parks and the police are in deep trouble!

Car parks are in big trouble, see this . As for the police and traffic wardens, you're probably thinking of fixed penalty notices.

A fine can only be issued by a court when someone is convicted of an offence.

I feel it is high unlikely that anyone will be prosecuted, or convicted in the circumstances described in this thread, therefore I feel a fine is unlikely (IANAL and this is not legal advice).

The fact that you, and many others, mistake PFs for fines, when PFs are not intended for people who are acting in a way that could lead to prosecution and fine, demonstrates that the PF system is flawed.

And if SWT want damages under English law, they would have to demonstrate suffering a loss to the company by the person getting off at Eastleigh as opposed to staying on to Southampton. It would be very interesting to see such a claim be made in a court, but I reckon we will never see that happening. The TOCs would not want the awful publicity and they will be too worried that they may lose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_of_Damages_under_English_law

So one can say that the rail companies are making it easier for people to get the correct ticket rather than be fined/taken to court?

The statement/question is nonsense.

Under certain circumstances described above e.g. using Off Peak ticket at a peak time, an invalid ticket should be excessed, or in certain cases a new ticket issued at the appropriate fare e.g. using FCC only on Southern. The TOCs are not allowed, by the PF legislation, to issue PFs in these circumstances. I'm sure some would want to though and there are reports of RPIs acting against the rules.

 

[djh1986]

Are you sure about that?

If I was, I'd be using them to support my argument.

 

[yorkie]

Are you sure about that?

ok, you seem to know where they live (which raises more questions than answers), which isn't proof of their intentions. If there is sufficient evidence of intent to avoid paying the 'correct' fare, and if this really is as clear-cut as claimed and if the TOCs really are determined to keep this rule, and if a breach of this rule really is as serious as the TOCs want us to believe, why were they issued a fare and not prosecuted?

 

[djh1986]

ok, you seem to know where they live (which raises more questions than answers), which isn't proof of their intentions. If there is sufficient evidence of intent to avoid paying the 'correct' fare, and if this really is as clear-cut as claimed and if the TOCs really are determined to keep this rule, and if a breach of this rule really is as serious as the TOCs want us to believe, why were they issued a fare and not prosecuted?

And if this is the case, they are mugs for not buying singles from the preceding station to Eastleigh to flash at the RPIs when alighting at Eastleigh!

 

[yorkie]

Yes it is. If I take a library book out for a month and take it back after two days, the library have done well..

No, that's very naughty. You agreed to loan it for a month. If you had only wanted to loan for 2 days you should have made your intentions clear, you would then have paid a higher price for people who make short-term loans. You have deliberately avoided this price by paying a much lower price for people who loan over a longer period of time. You entered into a contract for a month and are renegading on that contract, yet you expect the library to honour the contract by accepting it back and having to incur costs in having to have the book on their shelf? That's despicable. Your contract is from Day A to Day Z, not from Day A to Day C. You have therefore invalidated your contract. You deserve a £56 illegal fine and you should be considered a criminal for loan evasion, lucky that you were not prosecuted, and only let off because the library didn't want all it's customers to desert it. I have no sympathy. You are liable to twice the anytime loan for 2 days loan, which is much greater than the 1 month loan. Also according to our records you live near the library meaning you were probably intending to be passing the library within 2 days all along. Tut, tut, I hope you won't try to evade the correct loan in future!!

 

[MikeWh]

My take on the megatrain fiasco. It undoubtedly is a PR own-goal for the railways, and swt in particular, but that is because they've got the 'punishment' wrong. I've learned today that the reason megatrain was set up was to rival certain ultra-cheap coach companies operating out of specific centres like Southampton. On the coach you will be driven down the motorway directly between London and Southampton. It pays because everyone on the coach is going the whole way so the journey is quick (for a coach) and fuel efficient (less stopping and starting). If you want to use that from Eastleigh then you need to get to Southampton first.

Now, if swt filled a train with ultra-cheap ticket holders it wouldn't pay. But, where there is a bit of spare capacity they can offer some tickets. Fair enough so far. The prices really are eye-wateringly low (from the train company perspective) but because they are forcing people to go all the way to Southampton they can actually recoup some of that loss. A fair number of the passengers will travel onwards to other local stations and in so doing they will pay the full fare for those journeys. It wouldn't surprise me if that factor was somehow factored into the megatrain pricing.

But, there's a problem. The 'quiet' services with spare capacity are likely to be the ones which call at several of the intermediate stations. It'll still compare favourably speed wise with the coach, but some of the later stations will be ones that swt were hoping people would pay to come back to. So, what do you do. Well instead of making this couple pay the full penalty fare from London to Eastleigh I'd charge them a penalty fare from Southampton to Eastleigh. That way you are recognising that what they've actually done is deprive swt of the fare back from Southampton.

 

[Flamingo]

Yes it is. If I take a library book out for a month and take it back after two days, the library have done well.

SWT in this case have actually saved money, there are two spare empty seats between Eastleigh and their destination, they won't be using facilities onboard for as long etc.

What the majority of people don't understand is why travelling a shorter distance costs more money. A very simple argument. Having a blinkered Railways T&Cs view of things simply doesn't wash with the public.

So the railway are wrong to offer £6 tickets to Southampton from London?

 

[yorkie]

...So, what do you do. Well instead of making this couple pay the full penalty fare from London to Eastleigh I'd charge them a penalty fare from Southampton to Eastleigh. That way you are recognising that what they've actually done is deprive swt of the fare back from Southampton.

That's a very good point you make, and you are right in that you describe the actual monetary value lost to SWT (in theory). However the flaw with that is that you can't PF someone for a journey they haven't actually made. I think morally, it's a compelling argument, but it just doesn't make contractual or legal sense (or does it? perhaps a legal expert can give their view; I don't see how a PF could be issued for a journey that was not made but could the resolution be to send it to court, and then it could be argued that the damages to SWT were loss of £3.20 revenue for the ticket from SOU to ESL that would have otherwise been purchased had the customer not stopped 'short'. Such a court case would be very interesting indeed but we'll never get it I reckon!)

The last time we had a Megatrain discussion, it was for a journey to Norwich and the OP that time wanted to stop short at somewhere like Thetford. We basically concluded that the 'correct' fare was Megatrain to Norwich, then a Norwich-Thetford ticket. However no consensus was reached as to whether it is morally or legally wrong to pay this correct fare but not double-back into Norwich, with the 2 different camps disagreeing on this issue. In reality such a ticket combination will be accepted on board and at barriers (if in place), and my view is that morally the 'correct' fare is paid and would therefore be acceptable, but contractually it does break the terms, it is unclear what 'punishment' (if any) would be suitable, but it's a moot point as it would be accepted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So the railway are wrong to offer £6 tickets to Southampton from London?

I think the railway are 'wrong' to allow Megatrain to operate in the way that does as it causes confusion and does not fit in with the so-called 'simple' fares structure. I don't mind them using it as a brand and having a website that then sells normal Advance tickets.

I also think the railway are 'wrong' to have such a complex ticket system that charges people more for doing shorter journeys in such cases. This defies logic.

I don't think it is 'wrong' to offer £6 tickets from SOU to WAT as such, but I think that many passengers would prefer the walk-on fares to be more reasonable and not have these really cheap tickets, but there is no getting away from yield management now.

 

[jon0844]

I am of the opinion that if you have an advanced ticket and alight early, that's no harm to the railway.

I am also of the opinion that if you board at a later station, that's no harm to the railway either - but I'd say that if your seat is taken by someone else then you have forfeited that seat because you didn't board at the station marked on the ticket - and someone else would not expect you to appear later on.

Is that unfair?

Now, I'm not saying that is how it does work - but is it unfair to have such rules in place?

 

[Username]

Now I don't want anyone spitting their tea or coffee over their computer . . .

but . .

I actually feel bad for these two.

(I did warn you, so if you just christened your PC with your morning cuppa I accept no responsibilty)

Anyone who's read my posts on this thread will know my opinion on the topic of starting/stopping short on advances.
'Nuff said there.

However, I feel that the penalty fare system is just too punitive.
Up here in Jockland I guess we're just more civilised than you southern lot.

Up here, if no ticket is held, a ticket must be purchased.
If the passenger has no funds a report of irregular travelling is generated (similar to an unpaid fares notice i think?) which bills the passenger after the fact for the price of the ticket plus a £10 adminstrative fee. The company get their due plus a little bit extra to cover processing costs.

If the passenger holds a ticket which is invalid, this may be excessed to make it valid or a complete new ticket may be required, dependant on the circumstances and type of ticket.

That, to me, seems a reasonable and measured response.

In the case of the Eastleigh couple it would have required them to purchase a £28.50 ticket each as they would have been treated as 'no ticket held' due to breaking the terms of their ticket type.

Getting the £57, plus getting to keep the original £12 paid for the advances should be sufficient.
The company get their fare - no admin costs necessary as it's done face to face - and the loss of the £12 acts as a deterrent for the couple not to do it again.

But to double the amount to £114 is, again to my mind, ludicrous and profiteering. The company cannot claim there is any extra cost to be covered by doing this, it is purely to punish the passenger. Now by all means, have a deterrent, but keep it proportional.

If this had gone to press with the story being the couple getting charged £28 each to cover the cost of the tickets they should have used then perhaps the public would be less incensed. Perhaps more people would see it as "fair"?

Persistant fare evaders are a different kettle of fish. They'll keep popping up on the radar and can be dealt with by different means.

 

[Ferret]

And I agree too. It will be a "media disaster".

But the real test will be :- to what extent do the media bother with this story?
I'll be interested to know whether it just fades away or develops into a wider story.

It'll probably sink without trace!!! The newspapers have probably had their 5 minutes of fun and will move on to the next story about how many hookers Wayne Rooney allegedly bedded while Colleen was up the duff!

I have to say the whole idea that T&Cs are irrelevant is totally ludicrous. How would you expect any contracts in any walk of life to function without them?! The issue is the clarity of it all. On the face of it, this situation looks bad to the public at large but it really isn't right for any party in a contract to disregard the terms they have agreed on.

 

[yorkie]

Ferret - But that's not the issue, and I'm sure the banks said similar things about charges that were in the T&Cs but were then deemed unlawful. Just because something is in the T&Cs doesn't mean it is lawful, doesn't mean the general public won't be outraged by it, and it doesn't mean it's fair, and it doesn't mean it's right.

Username - Yes, I agree. I am not sure a PF is appropriate here within the rules, it may be, but even if it is, it isn't morally right IMO. The PF system is totally flawed. Yes you're right; non-PF areas are more civilised.

 

[Clip]

Ferret - But that's not the issue, and I'm sure the banks said similar things about charges that were in the T&Cs but were then deemed unlawful. Just because something is in the T&Cs doesn't mean it is lawful, doesn't mean the general public won't be outraged by it, and it doesn't mean it's fair, and it doesn't mean it's right.
.

Indeed Yorkie but look at Ryanair for example - their T&Cs state that you must book in online if you do not and want to book in at a desk you will incur a further charge. Also if you want to take on a bag that is bigger then the T&Cs state then you also incur a further charge for this to happen. Im not sure i can really see the difference so are now the airlines T&Cs different to the railways? Are the T&Cs for buying a ticket on the railway not as enforceable as the airlines because i know for sure if you did not pay or agree to the charges you would be left at the airport. And with no refund either as you did not abide by the T&Cs of said airline

 

[Ferret]

Ferret - But that's not the issue, and I'm sure the banks said similar things about charges that were in the T&Cs but were then deemed unlawful. Just because something is in the T&Cs doesn't mean it is lawful, doesn't mean the general public won't be outraged by it, and it doesn't mean it's fair, and it doesn't mean it's right.

Username - Yes, I agree. I am not sure a PF is appropriate here within the rules, it may be, but even if it is, it isn't morally right IMO. The PF system is totally flawed. Yes you're right; non-PF areas are more civilised.

Yorkie - I see where you're coming from on this. What concerns me is how clear it is in the booking process. My understanding on the banking charge fiasco was that there were penalties hidden away in small print. I've never used the Megatrain site, so I'm not aware how clear they make the T&Cs. If the whole thing isn't made clear at the booking process, then I'd agree that a 3 figure PF is a bit strong. Still, there's an old saying - 'let the buyer beware'. If you're getting a London-Southampton trip for 6 quid then you must know there will be some strong conditions attached to that. If you've not taken the time and trouble to understand them then whose fault is that really? V