ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Why would East Coast lose in court? Like it or not, the professor is in breach of his ticket's conditions and nothing we do or say can change that.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Professor slapped with £155 railway fine for getting OFF the train one stop early.
- Thread starter General Zod
- Start date
- Status
Why would East Coast lose in court? Like it or not, the professor is in breach of his ticket's conditions and nothing we do or say can change that.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
See DaveNewcastle's analysis on the previous thread.
They know they'd lose - if they thought they'd win they'd have pursued it!
I know you're most upset at the thought of a passenger not being chinged £155, but face it: the customer won. End of!
And I've found the thread with the previous examples from GNER:-
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=12879
This latest decision to not persue the customer is nothing new, and in line with previous decisions. It does not surprise me at all.
This may upset some people who are anti-customer. Good! They can continue being upset because I don't see this policy changing any time soon.
Tehcnically if you sit in a seat other than the one reserved for you I believe you would also be in breach of the terms and conditions but does anyone seriously think you should be forced to buy a Standard Anytime Single if caught in the wrong seat?
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Whether or not the customer is correct, they will never take someone to court over it, not because they are afraid of losing, it's because they will not gain anything from it. Think about it - what do they gain? Most notably, a lot of bad press, and then they'll have to pay their legal costs - all for £155. It's not that they are afraid of losing, it's just that it isn't worth it. It's far easier for them to get a nameless spokesman to spout some corporate stuff and write off the £155.
I didn't say I was upset about it did I? Please don't put words into my mouth. It's a fact that he was in breach of the ticket's conditions. Personally, I think it's rather silly to charge £155 for it, especially since it was only one stop - far more reasonable would be the cost of a 1st class single Newcastle - Durham.
As you said yourself - you are not anti staff and I am not anti customer. We just see things from different angles.
Hmm, I think you raise valid points but I really do think they'd be worried about losing such a case, which would be hugely humiliating and an even bigger news story.
The fact you keep repeating that it was a breach indicates you are, let's say 'not over the moon' about the result, is that OK?
I agree that it would be considered a 'fair' amount (or, at least a lot fairer than the original ludicrous amount), however they'd be on potentially dodgy ground legally for charging for a journey (or part of a journey) that didn't take place. However I believe that someone who bought such a ticket combination is unlikely to be challenged, and if they were, could legitimately argue that there is no 'loss' to the company by them not doubling back, and... well it has all been covered previously so I'll leave it there.
And no you aren't really anti-customer, you are right. Sorry if I gave that impression.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Yes, undoubtably it would be. However, I don't think they would loose. There is a breach of the CoC, and it would be upheld. Remember, there is no suing happening here - it's a contractual breach. Therefore, IIRC (and I will check with a solicitor on this) that a loss does not need to be proven.
Considering I had mentioned it once when you said that, it couldn't be classed as repeating itThe fact you keep repeating that it was a breach indicates you are, let's say 'not over the moon' about the result, is that OK?
. But yes, I am not pleased about the result. It makes a mockery of the NCoC's. Either you enforce all the rules or you don't enforce any. East Coast seem to want to eat their cake and have it here.But if he had followed his contractual duty, and still wished to get off at Durham then he would have had to have made this journey, and then, perhaps, East Coast could argue that they have made a loss as he did not pay for that journey. It would be hard to prove though.
No, but there may be a case to say that it only exists for an extreme circumstance e.g. say you boarded a well laden train and the guard specifically asked people to sit in their allocated seats, if you were a lone passenger with no reasonable reason not to stick to the seat, and got an unreserved table for 4, and the guard asked you to move back to the original seat (e.g. so a family of 4 could sit at a table together) and you refused to move, the guard could then say that if you didn't move it could mean a new ticket. In such an extreme case, I wouldn't blame the guard.
But the equivalent of the situation the Professor was in may be, as someone exits the train, payment being demanded because someone saw the passenger in a different seat. Such a situation would of course be ludicrous.
So you are saying they'd not sue for fare evasion and would try to collect the fare as a civil debt? That's not what the people who chase up UPFNs say.
Well I kind of agree with you, but I predicted this result as we've seen it before. The only surprise to me, is that anyone else is surprised.Considering I had mentioned it once when you said that, it couldn't be classed as repeating it
Yes, I know what you are saying, and I can't really disagree with that at all.
Hands up here Radamfi! I had a family wanting to sit together on a long journey about a month ago. Only way I could do it was to ask 2 people with Advance tickets to vacate some unreserved seats and sit in their booked seats. As one of the two people was reluctant, I politely quoted the relevant condition and tugged on their heartstrings by asking the young family to stand with me when I asked them to move. Worked a treat, and the family concerned were most grateful!
No. We once tried to ask a guard if we were able to move seats because someone else was joining us later and we'd booked together but it hadn't allocated us seats together. The train was busy, but a table was still available in the buffet, and I think he was too busy to really take in what we were asking, and I think he thought we were showing his ticket saying he'd be on later. My theory is that it didn't occur to him what we were asking. He was wanting to get on and check the rest of the train so we let it go, moved to a table and all was fine
On other occasions I have moved due to various reasons and never had a problem. And this was on East Coast.A common problem is being booked away from your bike. If I am on TPE I will therefore sit near the bike for obvious reasons. No guard has ever complained about that and if they did I am sure they'd be fine with my explanation! TPE have been most accomodating for example if I do a cycle ride on a circular route and ask if I need another ticket to do a bit of a journey which would have been valid had the former line still exist, I've always been told that I am OK to travel, which I always appreciate very much.
The vast majority of guards are very accommodating toward genuine passengers, the horror stories that get posted here, yes they can be shocking, but they only represent a tiny fraction of overall journeys. Of course these types of incidents grab the headlines because they are, thankfully, not very common.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Aha, exactly what I posted earlier! I fully support that.Hands up here Radamfi! I had a family wanting to sit together on a long journey about a month ago. Only way I could do it was to ask 2 people with Advance tickets to vacate some unreserved seats and sit in their booked seats. As one of the two people was reluctant, I politely quoted the relevant condition and tugged on their heartstrings by asking the young family to stand with me when I asked them to move. Worked a treat, and the family concerned were most grateful!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I really wouldn't worry about it. Most guards would be accommodating to your needs and it wouldn't be a problem, providing alternative seats are available (which would often be the case). No-one is going to charge you a new ticket on this condition without warning, the example I posted earlier (and confirmed by ferret) is an extreme example and easily avoided!
I can certainly see why East Coast can claim a 100% success rate. If this did go to court, I doubt anyone could prove any actual loss to the TOC (indeed, someone could sit in the seat after the person alighted, and move if they magically re-appeared), and one day you'll hopefully get a judge that will consider such rules to be unfair and call into question the whole NRCoC.
Nobody in the industry wants that, so nothing will change and cases like this are unlikely to be tested.
As an aside, I wonder what groups of people would have prompted the Daily Mail to report on this in a positive way, as against a negative way in support of the rail operator. With the way the DM works, I believe they COULD have taken the other side if the circumstances were slightly different.
Professor; Positive
Young female student; Positive
Nurse, teacher or care worker; Positive
Young male, wearing tracksuit; Negative, obviously playing the system - hang him...
Foreigner; definitely playing the system, and what's more I bet there are loads more doing it every day... abusing tickets designed to enable professors, students, nurses, teachers and care workers to travel cheaply. Hang them THEN deport them...
I'm sure you can all some of your own... !
Nobody in the industry wants that, so nothing will change and cases like this are unlikely to be tested.
As an aside, I wonder what groups of people would have prompted the Daily Mail to report on this in a positive way, as against a negative way in support of the rail operator. With the way the DM works, I believe they COULD have taken the other side if the circumstances were slightly different.
Professor; Positive
Young female student; Positive
Nurse, teacher or care worker; Positive
Young male, wearing tracksuit; Negative, obviously playing the system - hang him...
Foreigner; definitely playing the system, and what's more I bet there are loads more doing it every day... abusing tickets designed to enable professors, students, nurses, teachers and care workers to travel cheaply. Hang them THEN deport them...
I'm sure you can all some of your own... !
Last edited:
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
That is my understanding. (I am not a solicitor).
The Terms and Conditions to a Contract can be fulfilled or not by each party. If one party fails in their obligations, then the other party has, possibly, (subject to a raft of detailled case law), the potential to claim that the contract is void or to have their obligation to fulfill some of their own Terms quashed (or otherwise modified in proportion to the failure by the other party). [There is very much canonical detail which bears on all this, so please do not re-quote this post in another context].
I agree that without a loss there are no damages. (With a loss, it does not follow that there are grounds for a succesful claim).
Without a loss, the grounds for suing are very restricted (though there are some 'notional' or potential losses which can substantiate the basis of a claim (including an Injunction against the other party to prevent them from doing something which is potentially unlawful), plus challenges to the other party's actions or rules / conditions / procedures (including a Judicial Review - in which case there will be a decision in law which is being "Reviewed")).
But without a loss and without evidence that an unlawfull act is about to take place, then the average passenger has no grounds in Civil Law that I'm aware of to take legal action against a TOC. (Perhaps that's why we hear so much about about exceptional cases where the TOC's policy is tested against Criminal Law? e.g. Disability Discrimination, Racial Discrimination, Anti-Competitive legislation, Data Protection, Consumer Protection etc etc.)
In short, yes, but its not clear-cut.
Last edited:
spoony
Member
As he got off at Darlington instead of Durham, why cant they charge him a single from Durham back to Darlington? Or is this too simples and idea:
Or if he was really sneaky, he could have bought/collected a Dinsdale to Darlington ticket before boarding at a TVM, hung around a until a train from that direction turned up and used that ticket
The mind of the common thief
Or if he was really sneaky, he could have bought/collected a Dinsdale to Darlington ticket before boarding at a TVM, hung around a until a train from that direction turned up and used that ticket The mind of the common thiefCommon sense would say if someone is getting off short, to let them out of the barriers. If you try to charge them a new single at daft prices, then it will get overturned and bad press for the company. Although issuing the additional (much cheaper) ticket that would be valid for doubling back is perhaps fair, it's dubious to force them to buy such a ticket just because they didn't double back. In some cases an excess may be suitable.
But really the LUL approach is the most sensible; a cross-London transfer is not valid for BOJ but if you exit at a non-London terminal (e.g. Bond St) the cross-London transfer is considered expired and you have to continue the journey (if you wish to do so) by alternative means. This is sensible and means that if someone got claustrophobic on the tube, or felt unwell, etc, then they could get out of the system without hassle. But they can't get back in. Common sense!
185
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 5,023
Unlike Megatrain-gate, I'm not going to try defend this one, this is a sign of true stupidity by rail staff.
Who the hell do East Coast think they are mucking around with other operators conditions? The guy had come from New Street and looking at the newspaper photo it's an XC-Only Advance ticket. How much else isn't getting reported?
On the other hand, I have to ask, as the guy is a 'professor', who looks like the type to probably assume he knows better than "some little oink in a uniform" - has he spoke like dirt to them? hence the standard fare being demanded (not a fine).
Who the hell do East Coast think they are mucking around with other operators conditions? The guy had come from New Street and looking at the newspaper photo it's an XC-Only Advance ticket. How much else isn't getting reported?
On the other hand, I have to ask, as the guy is a 'professor', who looks like the type to probably assume he knows better than "some little oink in a uniform" - has he spoke like dirt to them? hence the standard fare being demanded (not a fine).
blacknight
Member
Sorry once this old chestnut is mentioned, Goodwins Law (subsection - Rules) now applies!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
New rule for revenue staff - don't charge any passenger in breach of the CoC if they look like they might make a complaint.
Might be a chestnut with a long shelf life which is still applicable today as is the application of common sense.
Its a case of thinking do I stand a reasonable chance of sucessfully winning the case of a UFN, or as in this case will company NFA the case before you put pen to paper.
In this instant it was at the minor end of a breech in CoC so a quiet word in the Professor's ear may have alerted him to the error of is ways then. As he appears to be a law abiding person he may well of chosen to take onboard your warning & not repeated the offence.
Having then logged details if same person then committed the same offence you would stand a better chance of winning any future proscution by showing evidence of being a repeat offender.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hope reading the above offers gateline staff some reasonable advice on the way forward. I do have some sympathy for the Agency Staff involved who are put in at the deep end by East Coast with limited training, maybe the company spokesman to do a turn on gateline would they still quote that yes it is a breech of CoC but then lack the will to back staff as in this case & prosecute the UFN least then there could have been a judgement on thios CoC.
IMO at present there are 2 wings in East Coast Revenue Protection & Public Relations & the 2 are at odds gatelines have gone in but station are not closed RP would like this but PR wouldn't for fear of more bad publicity & possibility offending majority on this forum.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Be interesting to know where any monies recovered by a UFN go to? Is it XC service operator or East Coast as station operator issuing the UFN, if it is the later then to quote Dire Staights "Money For Nothing"
all the way to the East Coast bank.
Last edited:
Ther eis an underlying implication that East Coast might have waived the fare because the customer was a first class ticket holder and a professor. They qere quoted as stating that they accepted the customer had made a genuine mistake. Would they have said the same thing if it had been, as jonmoris0844 said, a younger male with a standard class advance ticket?
Never. I find it very rare that a guard asks to see the reservation tickets on an advance. Mind you, I hold them in my hand, so the guard can see I have them, they just never look at them!
Hands up here Radamfi! I had a family wanting to sit together on a long journey about a month ago. Only way I could do it was to ask 2 people with Advance tickets to vacate some unreserved seats and sit in their booked seats. As one of the two people was reluctant, I politely quoted the relevant condition and tugged on their heartstrings by asking the young family to stand with me when I asked them to move. Worked a treat, and the family concerned were most grateful!
A very sensible way of handling the situation!
The situation brings up another thought in my mind. It has been said that the prof got his tickets from the University admin office. (This would tie in with my own experiences in getting rail tickets in work, they had to be booked through HR who used some sort of ticket agency).
As the tickets were bought for the customer, who is responsible for reading and adhering to the T&C's? Presumably the prof will not have gone on to any website, he will have merely outlined his travel plans and been sent the tickets by the admin office. The latter (if they were like where I worked) would merely have said that the tickets must be used on the booked trains.
In the circumstances, I'm not surprised that the professor was annoyed. I fully agree that the T&C's for advance tickets need to be looked at and amended for clarity to both passengers and staff.
I only really meant how it would have been reported, or indeed the opinions in discussions (see the comments on the Daily Mail site), not how EC may have treated him differently.
I do think that East Coast saw sense on this, and hope they would have done so for anyone. I suspect that they are in a position to act fairer given their ownership. Of course, they must sort out what they expect guards and RPIs to do - as you can't make them strictly follow rules that you won't actually enforce afterwards.
All East Coast needs to do is say that you can travel short on an Advance Ticket. Problem solved. If other TOCs wish to continue to enforce the rules, they're free to do so. That proves there's actually some competition in the railway too.
Last edited:
Yes, but it does raise questions in my mind as to both how it would be reported, and consequently how East Coast would have responded. I think the two go hand in hand!
I'd like to see East Coast make such a statement, but I'd be surprised if they did!
I'd like to see East Coast make such a statement, but I'd be surprised if they did!
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,857
It was on Channel 5 news at Five too, comparing it to leaving a cinema early, not finishing a meal, or reading a book cover to cover. ANd Martin Lewis talking about it. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING
penaltyfines
Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2010
- Messages
- 298
But the majority of the public will treat it as the same thing. The rail industry is being ridiculed for having a rule that is ludicrous and unenforceable (and not enforced if you refuse to pay), and not unjustifiably so in the eyes of the masses. It's the rail industry's problem. It's not the general public who has a problem. It may not be "the same thing" but it's perception that matters.It was on Channel 5 news at Five too, comparing it to leaving a cinema early, not finishing a meal, or reading a book cover to cover. ANd Martin Lewis talking about it. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING
Most people believe that you should not be penalised if you do not use all of a product that you have paid for. It's a reasonable view. If the railway industry wishes to continue with these sorts of tickets, they must either accept that people will occasionally, find it more convenient not to travel all the way to the destnation on the ticket, or make a far greater effort to communicate the restrictions to the public, including their reasoning for preventing alighting short.
Of course, all we will get is a continuation of the current shambles, where these stories hit the media and succeed only in making the system look absurd, and putting more people off travelling by train.
ATOC will remain silent on this issue!
Of course, all we will get is a continuation of the current shambles, where these stories hit the media and succeed only in making the system look absurd, and putting more people off travelling by train.
ATOC will remain silent on this issue!
- Status