Stopping Short

[34D]

So, if I understand this correctly, is it now acceptable to stop and/or start short on an Advance ticket?

No not at all

 

[cuccir]

Well define "acceptable". It seems that in practice, if you're not doing something that appears 'unreasonable', you'll get away with/be allowed to stop short on Advance tickets in many, if not most, circumstances. The ATOC advice that Yorkie refers to, I believe, reflects this.

However, that doesn't stop it being against the Terms and Conditions of the ticket and anyone doing this ought to be aware of the potential consequences ie being liable for an excess to the most appropriate fare. I'd say it's also not wise for the forum to advise doing anything against the T&Cs, although it's also reasonable for us to describe the situation that many passengers might face.

 

[LisaH]

What is the ATOC guidance? A while back I travelled from Manchester to Ferryside on an advance - after I'd booked I'd realised doubling back at Carmarthen added almost an hour to my journey. I could have had a lift from Carmarthen but having checked with the guard on the train and been told I couldn't leave the station there I didn't do it. In fact I don't think there was anyone on duty at Carmarthen to check!

(The following year I did the same journey but had arranged to be picked up at Carmarthen - we had to come off at Bridgend due to an incident on the line and then eventually got a much later train which stopped at Ferryside. I'm afraid I didn't even bother asking but just got off at Ferryside!)

 

[VauxhallandI]

This is the problem, I could have packed up all my valuables and wandered up the train to be told it is ok. Only to be told it wasn't at the bottom of the flight of stairs.

 

[jb]

Yorkie: "common sense and ATOC guidelines?" Is that all you have?

The first means "travel more cheaply than those who use their tickets correctly" and the second means "preventing folk from taking the **** isn't worth the PR".

Pray tell, what message do you have for us who use tickets correctly? I am all ears.

Honestly, there is enough campaigning to be done about TOC staff who ride roughshod over basic rules. It's highly ironic that so much of your warrioring concerns passengers' rights to do precisely thus.

 

[yorkie]

How is it any cheaper to purchase Manchester <> London compared with Stockport <> London anyway?

In your post #20 you appear to suggest that the EC staff at the gateline acted correctly, but not only was it against EC policy but also the conditions don't allow for a new, full-fare ticket to be charged anyway.

I don't see how suggesting to the passenger to "ask the guard if you need to double back?" and pointing out what the conditions, company policies and ATOC guidance are, counts as "warrioring" but as that's not even a word, you can call it that if you wish!

Your hostility towards the rail industry allowing passengers to start/finish short surprises me, but is something I am well aware of, from previous threads.

 

[jb]

In your post #20 you appear to suggest that the EC staff at the gateline acted correctly, but not only was it against EC policy but also the conditions don't allow for a new, full-fare ticket to be charged anyway.

Nice try at confusing the issue. You know perfectly well that the Darlington issue wouldn't have even arisen had the passenger not chosen unilaterally to ignore the conditions attached to his ticket. You also know perfectly well that no-one (outside a bunch of nerds on an internet forum) gives a monkeys about excesses and full-fare tickets. I'd think it really rather likely that the passenger isn't aware of this even now. All they cared about was not being charged anything because their "common sense" told them they shouldn't be. You know perfectly well that the whole furore was about the "common sense" and the "principle" of the thing. You know perfectly well that the TOCs stance was about making the problem go away, quickly.

You are saying, directly, that it is OK for passengers to do what they feel like. Some of us (who don't just do what we feel like) will continue to call you out on that, however inconvenient it may seem to you.

 

[nedchester]

The fact is that oany normal passenger stopped short is in no way trying to avoid the fare. You've not deprived the railway of any money by getting off at Stockport instead on Manchester.

Of course you can quote T&Cs but to be honest if it's hidden in the small print then it's unlikely to have been read. We all tick that we've read all the terms but the reality is we don't. If You have the time to read them every time you make any purchase then you have a lot of time on your hands!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The fact is that oany normal passenger stopped short is in no way trying to avoid the fare. You've not deprived the railway of any money by getting off at Stockport instead on Manchester.....

We don't actually know whether the Advance fares to Manchester and Stockport were different or not at the time of purchase so I'm not sure we can play the "the railway did/didn't lose out" game, though we do know that the Advance tickets are generally cheaper than walk-up tickets (that allow "stopping short"). From personal experience I have known Advance fares for shorter journeys to be more expensive than for longer journeys (and not much longer either).

On one occasion, earlier this year, I needed to get from Birmingham to London, the Advance fare was £15. I looked at the fare from Sandwell and Dudley (SAD) on the same train and it was £7.50. I bought a ticket to SAD and the Advance and made that double back journey because those were the conditions to which I had agreed. As it happens the Train Manager didn't make it 'round until after Birmingham International so I need not have made that extra purchase, right?. Well no, because if I hadn't I'd have been breaking the T&Cs that I agreed to, not that this seems to bother anyone these days, I mean, it's not like a member of staff would have been breaking the rules or anything, that's a different ball game isn't it?.

How much would the railway have lost if I had just started short? How much of a fare would I have evaded?

Of course you can quote T&Cs but to be honest if it's hidden in the small print then it's unlikely to have been read. We all tick that we've read all the terms but the reality is we don't. If You have the time to read them every time you make any purchase then you have a lot of time on your hands!

Hidden in the small print? You have to tick a box to say you have read them! You can't buy the ticket online without doing that! If you fail to even look at them, that is not "hidden in the small print", that's 'being a bit stupid'.

If I have to tick a box that says I have read and agree to the T&Cs (be it for train tickets or anything else in life), then I make sure I look through them (how else do I know what I am agreeing to?), I might miss something, that's life, but if I don't check them then I know I am asking for trouble. It really doesn't take that long in 'every day' cases.

People are in too much of a rush these days. There are times I hand over a conditions card and start to explain the conditions, and as soon as I do so I see a marked change in the facial expression and body language of the passenger, going from 'oh great I got a good deal there' (or whatever) to 'oh please shut up and let me leave'. I'm actually trying to tell them what they need to know (it's really not for the good of my own health), but they don't care and will doubtless moan to anyone who will listen when they are caught out.

TOCs back down because they'd rather be seen in good light in the media than actually tarnish a reputation (to the detriment of the staff they give the rules to), knowing that 90% (guesstimate) of people won't complain that much.

If the TOCs actually stuck to their guns (and the T&Cs the passenger agrees to) then the passengers would get a consistent approach that they know they can't get out off.

 

[FenMan]

The TOCs don't help themselves by hiding key terms deep in impenetrable documents.

A good example is restriction FB, used by FCC for some super off peak day returns valid at weekends and bank holidays.

Is break of journey permitted?

Scrolling down ...

Break of Journey:
Out/Rtn - YES

So that's ok then. But wait ....

Scrolling down to the bottom of the document, there's this:-

3. BREAK OF JOURNEY:
Break of journey is allowed
on Super Off-Peak Day tickets
unless otherwise indicated by
a restriction shown against
the ticket's validity code.
On tickets PDS/PDR/AM1/AM2
break of journey is available
when:
a) changing trains for
connectional purposes
b) Inside the London Fare
Zones area, but only on the
line of route for the ticket.

Hmm, so what's the Super Off Peak Day Return's validity code? This could affect me.

Scrolling back to the top of the document ....

The validity codes for this ticket (presumably, as there is no heading stating they are Validity Codes) are:-

AM1/AM2/C1R/CBA/CBB/ECD/GDR/
GDS/OPD/PDR/PDS/SCO/SOA/SOB/
SRR/SWS - SUPER OFF-PEAK DAY.

Now, cross-referring the validity codes in the additional Break of Journey restriction text, codes PDS/PDR/AM1/AM2 are called up in both sections.

So, when outside the London Fare Zones area (whatever that is - the term is not defined here) break of journey is only permitted to change trains.

So, my reading of the restriction is that break of journey to start or stop short, leave a station en route to do some shopping and so on is not permitted either out or back. Apparently.

Now run that by me again that it is the customer's responsibility to understand the restrictions of the tickets they purchase!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Of course you can quote T&Cs but to be honest if it's hidden in the small print then it's unlikely to have been read. We all tick that we've read all the terms but the reality is we don't. If You have the time to read them every time you make any purchase then you have a lot of time on your hands!

That's your problem if you get caught out by not reading something that you were advised (and had to confirm) you had read.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The TOCs don't help themselves by hiding key terms deep in impenetrable documents.

A good example is restriction FB, used by FCC for some super off peak day returns valid at weekends and bank holidays.

Is break of journey permitted?

Scrolling down ...

Break of Journey:
Out/Rtn - YES

So that's ok then. But wait ....

Scrolling down to the bottom of the document, there's this:-

3. BREAK OF JOURNEY:
Break of journey is allowed
on Super Off-Peak Day tickets
unless otherwise indicated by
a restriction shown against
the ticket's validity code.
On tickets PDS/PDR/AM1/AM2
break of journey is available
when:
a) changing trains for
connectional purposes
b) Inside the London Fare
Zones area, but only on the
line of route for the ticket.

Hmm, so what's the SOP Day Return's validity code? This could affect me.

Scrolling back to the top of the document ....

The validity codes for this ticket (presumably, as there is no heading stating they are Validity Codes) are:-

AM1/AM2/C1R/CBA/CBB/ECD/GDR/
GDS/OPD/PDR/PDS/SCO/SOA/SOB/
SRR/SWS - SUPER OFF-PEAK DAY.

Now, cross-referring the validity codes in the additional Break of Journey restriction text, codes PDS/PDR/AM1/AM2 are called up in both sections.

So, when outside the London Fare Zones area (whatever that is - the term is not defined here) break of journey is only permitted to change trains.

So, my reading of the restriction is that break of journey to start or stop short, leave a station en route to do some shopping and so on is not permitted either out or back. Apparently.

Now run that by me again that it is the customer's responsibility to understand the restrictions of the tickets they purchase!

Clear as mud.

The system is over complicated and these terms are under publicised.

 

[cuccir]

Clear as mud.

The system is over complicated and these terms are under publicised.

Possibly, though the presence of some unclear/under-publicized T&Cs does not mean that all T&Cs are unclear and under-publicized.

Again, I think the advice we give can actually be pretty clear: it's not permitted by the T&Cs, but is widely tolerated by staff. If you buy the tickets required to double back then it would be odd if someone made you physically do this, and you've paid the appropriate fare. Anyone looking to stop short without doing this should be warned that it's possible that they'll be asked to pay an excess.

 

[jkdd77]

Clear as mud.

The system is over complicated and these terms are under publicised.

NRE itself says (and ticket-selling websites say the same thing):

A break of journey is permitted on both the outward and return portions of a Super Off-Peak Day Return unless otherwise indicated by a restriction shown against the ticket's Restriction Code.

the 'official' PB restriction code on the NRE website (now the 'definitive source of validity', remember), makes no reference to any restriction on BoJ: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/pdfs/PDR_PB.pdf
and Condition 16 of the NRCoC itself states that any restrictions on BoJ on flexible tickets must be made clear when the passenger purchases their ticket, and such hidden, opaque and confusing restrictions can hardly be said to have been "made clear".

The supposed restriction is even more confusing when one considers that merely changing trains at a station is not considered to be a BoJ at all.

For these reasons, I would say that BoJ is probably contractually permitted on those specific walk-up tickets, regardless of what Avantix or brfares might suggest.

However, this is clearly not the case with advance tickets, where the prohibition on BoJ is indeed made clear.

 

[FenMan]

NRE itself says (and ticket-selling websites say the same thing):
the 'official' PB restriction code on the NRE website (now the 'definitive source of validity', remember), makes no reference to any restriction on BoJ: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/pdfs/PDR_PB.pdf
and Condition 16 of the NRCoC itself states that any restrictions on BoJ on flexible tickets must be made clear when the passenger purchases their ticket, and such hidden, opaque and confusing restrictions can hardly be said to have been "made clear".

The supposed restriction is even more confusing when one considers that merely changing trains at a station is not considered to be a BoJ at all.

For these reasons, I would say that BoJ is probably contractually permitted on those specific walk-up tickets, regardless of what Avantix or brfares might suggest.

However, this is clearly not the case with advance tickets, where the prohibition on BoJ is indeed made clear.

The restriction code is FB, however your point still applies.

 

[yorkie]

That's your problem if you get caught out by not reading something that you were advised (and had to confirm) you had read.

But if you are 'caught out', the rules are as stated in the NRCoC (these rules were not followed at Darlington and Eastleigh).

Also all employees must adhere to the policies and procedures determined by their employer. In turn, TOCs should be adhering to ATOC guidelines.

 

[nedchester]

Hidden in the small print? You have to tick a box to say you have read them! You can't buy the ticket online without doing that! If you fail to even look at them, that is not "hidden in the small print", that's 'being a bit stupid'.

If I have to tick a box that says I have read and agree to the T&Cs (be it for train tickets or anything else in life), then I make sure I look through them (how else do I know what I am agreeing to?), I might miss something, that's life, but if I don't check them then I know I am asking for trouble. It really doesn't take that long in 'every day' cases.

People are in too much of a rush these days.

When you bought your computer did you read through all your conditions for Microsoft Windows? (or Apple for that matter?) Bet you didn't.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

It's like this. The guy at Darlo made a fuss in the media, the company realised that public opinion was against them, and they caved.

Why did they do that? It's in the T&Cs isn't it that they were in the right and the customer was in the wrong isn't it? But therein lies the problem. The "you can't finish early" rule makes no sense to anyone. So regardless of bloodymindedness or terms and conditions when the spotlight of public opinion declares the rules stupid, they concede the point.

So, if the rules are patently absurd does that mean it's OK for the rail company to say "its in the T&Cs" and that's it?

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk 2

 

[jb]

When you bought your computer did you read through all your conditions for Microsoft Windows? (or Apple for that matter?) Bet you didn't.

The question is not whether you read the T&Cs. The question is whether you complain abut the T&Cs after having not read them because you couldn't be bothered.

It's like this. The guy at Darlo made a fuss in the media, the company realised that public opinion was against them, and they caved.

Why did they do that? It's in the T&Cs isn't it that they were in the right and the customer was in the wrong isn't it? But therein lies the problem. The "you can't finish early" rule makes no sense to anyone. So regardless of bloodymindedness or terms and conditions when the spotlight of public opinion declares the rules stupid, they concede the point.

So, if the rules are patently absurd does that mean it's OK for the rail company to say "its in the T&Cs" and that's it?

You seem to be advocating a new ticket type, what I call a "Cretins' and Chancers' Advance". It has all the terms of an Advance as we now know it, with the addition of:

You can start or stop short if you feel like it, simply by saying you didn't know you couldn't. Whether you are a cretin who genuinely didn't know, or a chancer who just says so, this is the ticket for you.

The problem is that this ticket already exists. It's called an Anytime Single.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

As I said, if the terms and conditions on this ticket are legitimate then it's an easy defence for the rail company. Apparently they aren't, so they don't.

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk 2

 

[bb21]

As I said, if the terms and conditions on this ticket are legitimate then it's an easy defence for the rail company. Apparently they aren't, so they don't.

The fallacy of your argument is that public opinion and what is right don't always go hand-in-hand. Public outrage is not always rational.

I am not going to get involved in this debate. The reality is that the train companies will always cave in in these sort of situations as avoiding bad PR is seen as being above all other things. The rest are almost immaterial.

 

[455driver]

The fallacy of your argument is that public opinion and what is right don't always go hand-in-hand. Public outrage is not always rational.

I am not going to get involved in this debate. The reality is that the train companies will always cave in in these sort of situations as avoiding bad PR is seen as being above all other things including the staff who are trying to enforce the rules and get thoroughly demoralised when CS roll over and go against the frontline staff like this. The rest are almost immaterial.

Post edited to enforce the truth!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

When you bought your computer did you read through all your conditions for Microsoft Windows? (or Apple for that matter?) Bet you didn't.

I don't recall having to tick a box to say I was happy with terms and conditions of use, nor signing anything other than the sales voucher, but it was more than five years ago, so I might not be recalling everything.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Oh I don't claim for a moment that public opinion is always right. Nothing so silly as opinions that people can form.

The point is bad publicity. Terms and Conditions that most people consider reasonable are an easy defence - you knew the agreement, you chose to break it, here is the penalty. The rail companies rightly defend themselves on a number of fronts when called to question, and are happy taking people to court for evading fares - it's reasonable.

Why would reasonable, sensible rules generate bad publicity? This isn't about what's legal, or what the contract is, it's about the willingness of the contract holder to enforce it - without that willingness it's no contract at all. In this and other cases of passengers doing what most people consider reasonable and the rail company being what most people consider to be unreasonable, the rail company sides with the public.

My supposition is that (a) such clauses are unreasonable and (b) the rail companies know it. They get away with it on the quiet, but when called to question they back down.

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk 2

 

[bb21]

In the EC case with the professor, the correct procedure was to issue an excess, so that is the amount EC could have retained, while refunding the professor the rest of the money. Do you think it would be unreasonable to charge an excess and East Coast knows it since they refunded the whole amount?

Don't get me wrong, I find it quite daft that such a rule exists given that probably eight/nine times out of ten stopping short cannot be enforced, but that is the condition attached to a product offered at a reduced price. Some people want to pay as little as possible but when it comes to sticking to their side of the bargain out come all sorts of excuses, and that is what really grates me sometimes.

 

[Butts]

Having been guilty of this offence on an Edinburgh to Birmingham Megatrain Ticket short stopping in Wolverhampton, I can confirm it is quite plausible to "get away with it"

In my defence I wished to travel to Sandwell & Dudley and was in possession of a pre-purchased valid ticket from Wolverhampton to there. Continuing to Birmingham and having to "double back" would have extended my journey time.

The ticket from Wolverhampton to Sandwell & Dudley cost more than the Megatrain Ticket from Edinburgh to Birmingham

The reason I exited the station was for a "quick burn" before my connecting service arrived.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

The problem the Rail companies have is that a longer journey costs less than a shorter one on the same train stopping at the same stations in some cases and the public don't understand it. I don't have a problem with supply and demand and pricing accordingly - the correct price for anything is always the price you can sell it for regardless of what it costs you.

But if the correct price for journey X is Y, then logically the price for doing 90% of that journey is less. I don't want to get into another debate into how these fares arise, different markets etc etc, I'm just reporting on how ordinary punters see it when they compare rail ticket pricing to all of the other transactions they do daily.

Again, if it's perfectly sensible and reasonable why don't the rail companies defend it? There is a wider issue though with Terms and Conditions which no-one ever reads. There is an assumption that because people tick "I accept" that they can put anything they like in there and that makes it enforceable as it's punters responsibility. Not if they aren't willing to enforce it! A contract that neither side sticks to is no contract at all.

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk 2

 

[bb21]

Probably a whole host of reasons why they did not defend it, more bad PR being one major reason, regardless of whether the correct course of action would be reasonable. (The course of action taken was clearly not, as they were incorrect.)

I understand your point about how an average punter may see the situation, but that is not sufficient ground to rule whether something is reasonable or sensible. Quite a few things go against public perception or cause outrage. It does not necessarily mean that all those things are unreasonable.

While I accept that some passengers may well not be aware of the conditions attached to a restricted fare (despite ticking the box), there are plenty of people who despite being informed of them, still pretend that they weren't. Not stopping short/starting short is really not such a difficult concept to understand. That said, each case is different, and I support discretion being shown where appropriate.

 

[jb]

There is an assumption that because people tick "I accept" that they can put anything they like in there and that makes it enforceable as it's punters responsibility.

This is ludicrous.

 

[FenMan]

This is ludicrous.

It isn't ludicrous. LM have put weekend time restrictions on their Super Off Peak (OPR) products. Someone from SWT land, seeing an OPR ticket, would automatically assume it can be used on any train at the weekend.

As noted earlier, FCC have included deep in an internal document a break of journey restriction (probably not enforceable due to the way they have done it) on their OPR offering.

There's ludicrous and there's ludicrous.