"Break of Journey"

[penaltyfines]

Consider the route A>B>C.

Train calls A, B, C.

A to B: no advance fares, walk-up fare £15
A to C: advance fare £5
C to B: walk-up fare £3

Can I buy the advance A to C ticket, plus the walkup C to B ticket, then travel on the train from A to B?

I probably would do anyway as the gateline/RPIs wouldn't know any different presented with C to B ticket, but wondering how the CoC fits in

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Can I buy the advance A to C ticket, plus the walkup C to B ticket, then travel on the train from A to B?

Yes, provided that you travel A>C then C>B, otherwise the advance ticket will not be valid.

 

[tony_mac]

The conditions of carriage don't allow it (see below), although I think it's a bit crazy to penalise somebody for not making a return journey, particularly if the train is late. But I think it's a bit crazy to penalise somebody for getting off early as well.


(One of the conditions is that when combining tickets, the train must stop at the changeover station. A pedant could argue that 'the train' does stop there, and it doesn't explicitly state in the CoC that you must actually be on 'the train' at that point in the journey!)

 

[penaltyfines]

Yes, provided that you travel A>C then C>B, otherwise the advance ticket will not be valid.

I meant A>B direct, not going to C.

 

[yorkie]

Officially no.

In practice, it would normally be impossible to enforce...

 

[wibble]

Officially no.

In practice, it would normally be impossible to enforce...

Unless the train from C to B departs before the train from A arrives!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

In reality, I doubt anyone would care to notice, but that doesn't mean it is allowed or that it couldn't be proved in some cases (CCTV, guard chasing you out of the station waving a UFN/PF pad in the air and delaying his train in the process, etc, etc ).

 

[penaltyfines]

In reality, I doubt anyone would care to notice, but that doesn't mean it is allowed or that it couldn't be proved in some cases (CCTV, guard chasing you out of the station waving a UFN/PF pad in the air and delaying his train in the process, etc, etc ).

Talking of PFs, what I find funny is if a passenger gets ticketing wrong (forget this case for a minute), they can get a PF. If gateline/station staff get ticketing wrong (recent issue I have with FGW and boundary zone tickets on HST trains), nothing happens.

Legally they are quite entitled to be very strict with regards to validity/PFs etc, have no morality or discretion at all, but they should be held to the same standards!

</rant>

Which I would use to morally justify getting off at B

 

[gordonthemoron]

I have done something similar with no problems. Bought an advance ticket from KGX to Leeds, then travel plans altered so I had to go to Nottingham instead. So I bought a walk up ticket for the leg between Grantham & Nottingham in advance and simply got off the Leeds train onto the Nottingham one. Noone was any the wiser

 

[RJ]

Talking of PFs, what I find funny is if a passenger gets ticketing wrong (forget this case for a minute), they can get a PF. If gateline/station staff get ticketing wrong (recent issue I have with FGW and boundary zone tickets on HST trains), nothing happens.

Legally they are quite entitled to be very strict with regards to validity/PFs etc, have no morality or discretion at all, but they should be held to the same standards!

</rant>

Which I would use to morally justify getting off at B

To be fair the passenger has the right to appeal a PF. I went through this process and I received a full refund and struck off PF. I will use discretion where I feel it is appropriate but for people who quite clearly know what they're doing then attempt to pull the wool over my eyes, it's not appropriate at all.

 

[OwlMan]

I have done something similar with no problems. Bought an advance ticket from KGX to Leeds, then travel plans altered so I had to go to Nottingham instead. So I bought a walk up ticket for the leg between Grantham & Nottingham in advance and simply got off the Leeds train onto the Nottingham one. Noone was any the wiser

Of course the problem could be that if you are stopped for not complying with an advanced ticket, buying a ticket in advance to cover up the alighting early shows a deliberate attempt to avoid paying the correct fare!! (thus the likely action possible is to prosecute for fare evasion).

Peter

 

[penaltyfines]

To be fair the passenger has the right to appeal a PF. I went through this process and I received a full refund and struck off PF. I will use discretion where I feel it is appropriate but for people who quite clearly know what they're doing then attempt to pull the wool over my eyes, it's not appropriate at all.

Wasn't in relation to this thread, of course doing A>B is technically deliberate fare evasion.

Sure the right to appeal, but you are only guaranteed a refund if you haven't actually breached the CoC. Not if you didn't intend to breach the CoC.

E.g. if I buy a ticket discounted with a railcard, then when travelling have the railcard stolen, then get checked and PFed as travelling without a valid ticket. Perfectly legal as per CoC, could be refused on appeal even with receipt of railcard. Hardly ethical...

Or... If I forget to carry my railcard on one occasion, get PFed for travelling without a valid ticket, appealing with proof of railcard could still be refused. Again, perfectly legal as per CoC, but hardly ethical.... If I have proof of having a railcard I should get a refund of the PF minus administration fee, the Op hasn't lost a fare and there was no risk of revenue loss as PF was issued and only refunded on proof of Railcard.

Don't disagree that it's the passenger's responsibility to carry a railcard, that they're already getting a discount the least they can do it carry the card, all the usual arguments. But at least don't pretend that PFs are there to protect honest customers. In these cases there's no justification of protecting revenue

 

[cuccir]

I have done something similar with no problems. Bought an advance ticket from KGX to Leeds, then travel plans altered so I had to go to Nottingham instead. So I bought a walk up ticket for the leg between Grantham & Nottingham in advance and simply got off the Leeds train onto the Nottingham one. Noone was any the wiser

Yes: essentially, you have a valid ticket when you get to to the station, whilst you are sat on the train and when you leave the station. This sort of trick would be even easier to follow if you didn't have to change train to do it!

Nonetheless, it is breaking the T&Cs of the advance ticket, so you could probably be given an unpaid fare notice, or penalty fare if relevant, for the bit of the route done incorrectly - in the hypothetical example that would be for A>B, in this case it would be for KGX>Grantham. In practice, they'd have to firstly find reason to suspect you for fare evasion and secondly obtain proof that you'd used the advance ticket incorrectly.

Is it morally/ethically correct?:

* No if you subscribe to the rule that it is only moral to follow the legislated rules
* No if you believe the ticket restrictions in regards to advance fares are reasonable and that if your plans change or if they're not available for the route that you require then tough
* Yes if you think the ticketing system is unfair, inflexible and overly complicated, especially in regards to advance tickets
* Yes if you think that, fair or not, it is reasonable to purchase tickets that are only invalid on what might be viewed as a technicality (on any given moment on your trip, you are holding valid tickets)
* Yes if you subscribe to the rule that it is always right to try and get the best deal for yourself

I'm not telling you which one of those I agree with!

 

[gordonthemoron]

I told the wife about not being able to stop short on an advance ticket & she wouldn't believe me

 

[RJ]

Wasn't in relation to this thread, of course doing A>B is technically deliberate fare evasion.

Sure the right to appeal, but you are only guaranteed a refund if you haven't actually breached the CoC. Not if you didn't intend to breach the CoC.

E.g. if I buy a ticket discounted with a railcard, then when travelling have the railcard stolen, then get checked and PFed as travelling without a valid ticket. Perfectly legal as per CoC, could be refused on appeal even with receipt of railcard. Hardly ethical...

Or... If I forget to carry my railcard on one occasion, get PFed for travelling without a valid ticket, appealing with proof of railcard could still be refused. Again, perfectly legal as per CoC, but hardly ethical.... If I have proof of having a railcard I should get a refund of the PF minus administration fee, the Op hasn't lost a fare and there was no risk of revenue loss as PF was issued and only refunded on proof of Railcard.

Don't disagree that it's the passenger's responsibility to carry a railcard, that they're already getting a discount the least they can do it carry the card, all the usual arguments. But at least don't pretend that PFs are there to protect honest customers. In these cases there's no justification of protecting revenue

It's not about what your interpretation of what is ethical might be. It's about you following the rules as they are laid out to protect yourself against being penalised. I find it hard to believe that people will part with their money, not having the first clue as to what they're actually buying. I suppose you'll call me unreasonable because I check what I'm letting myself in for prior to parting with my money.


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

* Yes if you think the ticketing system is unfair, inflexible and overly complicated, especially in regards to advance tickets

This facade is completely transparent I'm afraid and I strongly doubt that you believe what you are saying. The terms of Advance tickets are about as straightforward as they come. The customer of their own volition chooses their origin and destination, then confirms they have read and understood the T&Cs prior to purchasing them, if purchased online. Otherwise the person issuing it advises of the restrictions. At what stage along that process do they become unfair or complicated?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This facade is completely transparent I'm afraid and I strongly doubt that you believe what you are saying. The terms of Advance tickets are about as straightforward as they come.

Now to be fair, cuccir was merely listing possible interpretations.
But in response to

At what stage along that process do they become unfair or complicated?

and, taking the context of the OP's original question :
..Consider the route A>B>C.
..Train calls A, B, C.
..I buy the advance A to C ticket, plus the walkup C to B ticket, then travel on the train from A to B
that stage is the point when the train calls at B the first time and the passenger doesn't alight.

Imagine this conversation at that moment:
Passenger to Guard "These are the tickets I have for my journey. They bring me to this station we've just arrived at. Would you like me to disembark now or remain on-board and double back to here?"
Guard to Passenger "You will have to stay on the train until we return here in xxxx minutes"

I would say that's a good contender for "unfair or complicated".
(I've assumed that its physically the same train that returns - which was not implied by the OP's question. I believe that assumption exaggerates the difficulty but doesn't change the interpretation. I am not condoning this abuse of the various ticket types that are available with their different conditions.)

 

[MikeWh]

At what stage along that process do they become unfair or complicated?

Well I have trouble reconciling these three scenarios:

1) Use ticket for full journey - no extra charge
2) Don't use ticket at all - no extra charge
3) Use ticket for part of journey - potentially horrendous extra charge

Please can someone explain how (3) is fair, given (2)?

 

[tony_mac]

I think I have more of a problem with ....

3) Use ticket for part of journey - potentially horrendous extra charge
4) Use ticket for entire journey and some more that wasn't paid for - potential small extra charge

Why should the penalty be less for taking things you haven't paid for, instead of not taking something that you have?

 

[ainsworth74]

Please can someone explain how (3) is fair, given (2)?

I don't think it is. It's the only problem I have with Advance tickets, every other condition and limitation I have no issue with, they are after all very cheap so I would expect limitations. But not being able to terminate my journey short should I so wish doesn't seem fair to me. Only terminate, not break and resume by the by.

 

[penaltyfines]

It's not about what your interpretation of what is ethical might be. It's about you following the rules as they are laid out to protect yourself against being penalised. I find it hard to believe that people will part with their money, not having the first clue as to what they're actually buying. I suppose you'll call me unreasonable because I check what I'm letting myself in for prior to parting with my money.

I thought I was sufficiently clear before, but I'll really try hard this time and try again for you.

I'm not questioning the terms of the contract, the terms of the Conditions of Carriage, or whether a Penalty Fare is valid. Sure people are agreeing to terms and conditions, they should read them. Good for you, some people like rules and regulations, it gives their life structure and removes all doubt or risk or the unknown.

What I was saying, is that the just because a rule is there - and I'm not trying to say for a minute that it should be deemed invalid, or that a PF appeal should succeed - doesn't mean it's ethically right.

Lets try a particularly pedantic example. e.g. a ticket remains the property of National Rail etc and can be withdrawn at any time. Lets say you get on the train, RPI withdraws the ticket, then PFs you for not having a valid ticket. NR CoC says that's fine (at least ambiguously). Sure, for the people that are only able to comprehend rules, that's just great. Passenger should have read the NR CoC and.... decided against travelling by rail, more fool them.

My point is people expect rules to be sensible, understandable, and in some way predictible. I'm not saying that the rules as they are are in some way unenforceable. But in this example, they are not what any sane, normal human being would expect. Which is fine, but it should be advertised better and people made aware of it.

Imagine going into a McDonalds, and on the back of the receipt that you throw away instinctively, it says 'See T&Cs'. Mr Puberty on the till doesn't know what Tees and Sees are, suggests you see the website. You eat half your cheeseburger and chuck the rest away. You get a £20 Penalty MealDeal because you didn't complete your burger (to cover refuse charges, of course), but that's ok, it said so in the T&Cs, which you should have read! Sounds ridiculous!

When the concept of travelling less distance, yet paying a fine for doing so, is 'perfectly understandable, you should have read the T&Cs, the above example doesn't sound so ridiculous!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I've been giving this particular question some more thorough consideration (and only this specific example) in terms of English Contract Law.

It appears to me that if (and only if) the passenger bought the 2 tickets in the one transaction, evidenced by the one receipt, then we have to look at the Agreement, the Consideration (payment) and the Intention of that transaction as one Contract (albeit with component parts, each with their own T&Cs).

Its clear that the payment has been made (the Consideration), and the Intention (of the combined transaction of 2 tickets) is fulfilled, the moment that the train first arrives at B, and so we are just left to argue over the Agreement.

The Agreement is that the passenger is entitled to be conveyed from A to B via C. But that is only an entitlement, not a compulsion.
(and as we've said, the railway company is entitled to the payment for travel from A to B via C).

The Entitlement of the Agreement and the Consideration have been adequately fulfilled the moment the passenger arrives at B, though the passenger can have every expectation of being conveyed further (to C) and back again. But crucially, the term of the Agreement has been fulfilled on arrival at B. The Condition which concludes the obligation under the Agreement has been achieved.
If there are grounds for complaint of non-fulfillment, then it would be the passenger, forced to leave at B, who could argue that they are entitled to remain on the train to C and back again because there is a possible reading of the tickets which authorises that journey for the Consideration paid.
There are no grounds for the Railway Company to argue non-fulfillment of terms by the passenger (because the Contract Terms do not require a passenger to travel at all!).
In fact, the T&C's of rail travel are remarkably silent on the obligations of passengers to be conveyed!

If a Railway Company were to succeed in a claim against a passenger under Contract Law in this specfic example, then I beleive that they would have to show that the Agreement actually requires the passenger to travel.
If there's no obligation under the Agreement for the passenger to travel at all, then it is hard to see what compulsion exists for the passenger to reach "C" before returning to "B".

I don't expect this defence to apply to other, and more general abuses of the Advance ticket.

 

[tony_mac]

where an onerous term is not what a reasonable consumer might expect (such as this one), it should be explicitly pointed out to the customer.

The consumer would not expect important obligations of this nature with likely and
significant impact to be tucked away in the “small print” only, with no prior flagging,
notice or discussion. I think that that is what has happened here. This important
obligation is in the small print only, in the sense that it has not been flagged or
referred to in any part of the dealings between the parties.
...
that is not a fair way to bring the point to the attention of the consumer,
and is not adequate.

having it 3/4 of the way down the second page of terms and conditions, that you haven't actually been told to read, really isn't satisfying that.

 

[penaltyfines]

I've been giving this particular question some more thorough consideration (and only this specific example) in terms of English Contract Law.

It appears to me that if (and only if) the passenger bought the 2 tickets in the one transaction, evidenced by the one receipt, then we have to look at the Agreement, the Consideration (payment) and the Intention of that transaction as one Contract (albeit with component parts, each with their own T&Cs).

Its clear that the payment has been made (the Consideration), and the Intention (of the combined transaction of 2 tickets) is fulfilled, the moment that the train first arrives at B, and so we are just left to argue over the Agreement.

The Agreement is that the passenger is entitled to be conveyed from A to B via C.
(and as we've said, the railway company is entitled to the payment for travel from A to B via C).

Both of these have been adequately fulfilled the moment the passenger arrives at B, though the passenger can have every expectation of being conveyed further (to C) and back again. But crucially, the term of the Agreement has been fulfilled on arrival at B. The Condition which concludes the obligation under the Agreement has been achieved.
If there are grounds for complaint of non-fulfillment, then it would be the passenger, forced to leave at B, who could argue that they are entitled to remain on the train to C and back again because there is a possible reading of the tickets which authorises that journey for the Consideration paid.
There are no grounds for the Railway Company to argue non-fulfillment of terms by the passenger (because the Contract Terms do not require a passenger to travel at all!).
In fact, the T&C's of rail travel are remarkably silent on the obligations of passengers to be conveyed!

I don't expect this defence to apply to other, and more general abuses of the Advance ticket.

Can you summarise that? :P

CoC says tickets must be carried... made available for inspection... etc?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Can you summarise that? :P

CoC says tickets must be carried... made available for inspection... etc?

(I have slightly expanded my post before you responded by quoting it all, and that expansion might help).
I'm not sure what you are asking. My analysis is about as brief as I can make it without loss of relevance.
I have made no consideration of tickets being available for inspection, though I assumed that the hypothetical passenger in Post #1 has tickets available for inspection and even suggested that they present them to the guard on arrival at "B" in post #16 to enable the informed discussion.

I regret that do not understand your question.

 

[penaltyfines]

(I have slightly expanded my post before you responded by quoting it all, and that expansion might help).
I'm not sure what you are asking. My analysis is about as brief as I can make it without loss of relevance.
I have made no consideration of tickets being available for inspection, though I assumed that the hypothetical passenger in Post #1 has tickets available for inspection and even suggested that they present them to the guard on arrival at "B" in post #16 to enable the informed discussion.

I regret that do not understand your question.

As this isn't a legal forum, could you summarise that or write it in layman's terms?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

As this isn't a legal forum, could you summarise that or write it in layman's terms?

All I can add (and I'm reluctant to say this in case it is taken out of context) is that if a passenger holds the tickets A>C via B and C>B and the most onerous Conditions are those pertaining to an Advance for the A>C leg, and the passenger wishes to alight at B without travelling on to C and back, then . . . .

the tickets give the passenger an entitlement to travel, but give the railway company a compulsion to convey the passenger.
As there is no compulsion for the passenger to travel at all, then the moment that the train arrives at "B" the railway company cannot then compell the passenger for further travel once they have completed their entitlement.

But that's not exactly what I said or meant, and would refer you to my earlier post. I apologise if my language is a little unclear.

 

[cuccir]

It's not about what your interpretation of what is ethical might be. It's about you following the rules as they are laid out to protect yourself against being penalised. I find it hard to believe that people will part with their money, not having the first clue as to what they're actually buying. I suppose you'll call me unreasonable because I check what I'm letting myself in for prior to parting with my money.

This facade is completely transparent I'm afraid and I strongly doubt that you believe what you are saying. The terms of Advance tickets are about as straightforward as they come. The customer of their own volition chooses their origin and destination, then confirms they have read and understood the T&Cs prior to purchasing them, if purchased online. Otherwise the person issuing it advises of the restrictions. At what stage along that process do they become unfair or complicated?

And I strongly doubt that you read my full post if you picked up just that one sentence. I don't think anyone - with DaveN as a possible exception - is making a case for the original hypothetical journey to be valid under the NCoC. (As for the niceties of contract law - I'm afraid this isn't a legal forum and the argument being made along those lines is probably above most our heads (it certainly is mine). As such I'm going to set that argument to the side for now!). But I do think the question posed by the OP is as much a question about what is morally and ethically right and unless you believe that the only moral thing to do is to follow the restrictions as published. In truth, I put those list of interpretations because I don't know which one I particularly believe; I can sympathise with the logic behind pretty much all of them.

 

[RJ]

Now to be fair, cuccir was merely listing possible interpretations.
But in response to and, taking the context of the OP's original question :
..Consider the route A>B>C.
..Train calls A, B, C.
..I buy the advance A to C ticket, plus the walkup C to B ticket, then travel on the train from A to B
that stage is the point when the train calls at B the first time and the passenger doesn't alight.

Imagine this conversation at that moment:
Passenger to Guard "These are the tickets I have for my journey. They bring me to this station we've just arrived at. Would you like me to disembark now or remain on-board and double back to here?"
Guard to Passenger "You will have to stay on the train until we return here in xxxx minutes"

I would say that's a good contender for "unfair or complicated".
(I've assumed that its physically the same train that returns - which was not implied by the OP's question. I believe that assumption exaggerates the difficulty but doesn't change the interpretation. I am not condoning this abuse of the various ticket types that are available with their different conditions.)

The Advance ticket is valid for travel between A and C as chosen by the customer. Not A and B, A and D or A and Z.

If somebody makes an assumption which nobody told them to make, is not explicitly supported by the contract or otherwise sanctioned and that assumption turns out to be wrong, you feel that the railway should be held accountable?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And I strongly doubt that you read my full post if you picked up just that one sentence. I don't think anyone - with DaveN as a possible exception - is making a case for the original hypothetical journey to be valid under the NCoC. (As for the niceties of contract law - I'm afraid this isn't a legal forum and the argument being made along those lines is probably above most our heads (it certainly is mine). As such I'm going to set that argument to the side for now!). But I do think the question posed by the OP is as much a question about what is morally and ethically right and unless you believe that the only moral thing to do is to follow the restrictions as published. In truth, I put those list of interpretations because I don't know which one I particularly believe; I can sympathise with the logic behind pretty much all of them.

I read all of your post but couldn't be bothered with the rest of it. I'm not somebody who supports the abdication of responsibility so I had litte else to say.

 

[penaltyfines]

The Advance ticket is valid for travel between A and C as chosen by the customer. Not A and B, A and D or A and Z.

If somebody makes an assumption which nobody told them to make, is not explicitly supported by the contract or otherwise sanctioned and that assumption turns out to be wrong, you feel that the railway should be held accountable?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



I read all of your post but couldn't be bothered with the rest of it. I'm not somebody who supports the abdication of responsibility so I had litte else to say.

RJ - With all due respect, I think you embody all that is bad and morally incomprehensible with the railways. You just can't comprehend that anything exists outside the rules.

On the plus side, for every time someone is penalised for the profit of the Op, there is someone else (travelling A>B) gaming the system and, thankfully, getting away with it just fine. And thus the world is balanced.

 

[MikeWh]

RJ: Perhaps you haven't felt that this question was directed at you personally, but I would genuinely be interested to know whether you (as a human being) think that the scenarios described in this quote of an earlier post are fair.

Well I have trouble reconciling these three scenarios:

1) Use ticket for full journey - no extra charge
2) Don't use ticket at all - no extra charge
3) Use ticket for part of journey - potentially horrendous extra charge

Please can someone explain how (3) is fair, given (2)?