Yes fair comment, but I don`t often know when I`ll be travelling you see, its bad enough being tied to flights, with trains I prefer to stay open with my times.
But with your system, buying an advance offers no loss of flexibility.
Yes fair comment, but I don`t often know when I`ll be travelling you see, its bad enough being tied to flights, with trains I prefer to stay open with my times.
Parts of the rail industry seem to adopt a default position at times of assuming that their passengers are thieving scum. From outside the railway bubble it's a bit perplexing. Perhaps a more reasonable system might consider whether the two have a history of attempting to blag reduced-cost travel in this manner and decide that £484 for a one-off error or faulty assumption is in these circumstances a bit steep.
Granted, I'm assuming that they don't have form in that area. If I'm making a faulty assumption of my own then this looks more reasonable.
And if the tickets aren't checked they potentially get away with a massive saving? As suggested in between the posts earlier, I think it only potentially works with a fee.
But with your system, buying an advance offers no loss of flexibility.
The article certainly doesn't seem to think so:Have we not established that a lesser fare would have been requested first, and the higher amount was as a result of an unwillingness to pay anything?
He said: “After 45 minutes a ticket inspector came on and said our tickets weren’t valid for this train. We had paid £161 for the return leg of the journey and I explained this.
“I also pointed out no one had suggested our tickets were invalid when we were allowed to board.
“Despite this, we offered to pay the difference between the £161 and the extra cost of the ticket for the train we boarded — but the inspector rejected this and instead we were issued with penalty notices for £484 when we arrived at Euston.”
The article certainly doesn't seem to think so:
I did also read the rest of the thread before posting, but it's possible that I missed something.
A UFN is merely a request for payment. While some train companies may have a particular policy regarding them, there is nothing - other than a train companies own policy - to stop them being issued for the appropriate and correct fare due.
The last I knew, VTEC can issue a UFN for any fare and I am not aware of VTWC being any different. But if they are only able to issue them for an incorrect amount, that doesn't make the incorrect amount correct!
Not strictly true, certainly in the case of the ferries. If you purchase the cheapest ticket and want to travel on a different sailing to the one booked, P&O will levy a £60 charge. http://www.poferries.com/en/terms-and-conditions - Section 4.
There are a number of reviews on TripAdvisor from passengers complaining about the charge.
To be honest, I don't see what Virgin have done wrong here. If you want to travel on the very cheapest tickets then you have to accept the terms and conditions that go with them. It's like flying Ryanair then complaining about not getting all the frills?
Form the same terms and conditions, the Liverpool-Dublin service has a £20 charge for saver ticket holders. As saver tickets are £20 cheaper than standard, this is effectively just paying the difference.
I notice from the Evening Standard article that the UFN was issued upon arrival at Euston. I had read of that approach being used by VTWC before. Allow the customer to stay on the train but phone ahead and make sure they are meet at Euston - rather then the matter being sorted on on board. In the same way they refuse to let people with valid tickets onto trains departing Euston sometimes!
I cannot help but wonder what attitude the passenger might have shown towards the TM on this occasion.
That sounds a far more resonable way of doing things, essentially paying the difference, which is what I was saying originally, but some failed to grasp it
You already can pay the difference if you wish to leave earlier, by paying a £10 fee....For example, you're in London for the day and plan to leave about 17h00. Do you:
a) Buy an advance for the 17h00 train for £100 and plan to make the train, knowing you can pay the difference if you leave earlier...
You already can pay the difference if you wish to leave earlier, by paying a £10 fee.
That sounds a far more resonable way of doing things, essentially paying the difference, which is what I was saying originally, but some failed to grasp it
It may be reasonable, unfortunately, it undermines the business model of making passengers pay a premium for flexibility.
For example, you're in London for the day and plan to leave about 17h00. Do you:
a) Buy an advance for the 17h00 train for £100 and plan to make the train, knowing you can pay the difference if you leave earlier
b) Buy a flexible ticket for £200 with a reservation on the 17h00 train, with the possibility of getting an earlier train.
Why would you buy a flexible ticket if you knew that you could upgrade a cheaper ticket on demand?
Advances exist to fill seats and cover fixed costs, flexible tickets are the jam on top. First class anytime is the clotted cream with rainbow sprinkles!
No, everyone grasped it, and indeed it’s a fairly poorly-thought out suggestion that has come up many times on the board. That’s why it’s generated a tiresome response from some people.
Buying in advance means that the TOC knows when you’ll be travelling. TOCs price these tickets to ensure you are incentivised to travel on less busy trains.
Your suggestion simply means everyone would just buy an advance ticket and pay the difference - but that of course only happens on the occasion you get a revenue check, which can vary between rarely and often. Not “always”.
Therefore the entire point of Advance tickets would be eviscerated from both a customer and business perspective. That’s why it’s a bad idea.
People change their plans at the last minute of course , and buisness models are for businesses, but thats not what I actually said anyway, but thanks for the input, I`m please you also feel that its reasonable.
How is a TOC not a business?
FWIW, though, the solution is already in place - excess your Advance to a walk-up for £10 plus the difference if you do it before the train departs. It just needs to be made easier to do (like the way the French have "billet echange" machines) and I'd add something like a £20 rescue fee option plus the difference if you miss the train but still arrive within say an hour of departure.
It is complicated by the issue of singles and returns being oddly priced, but a move to single fare pricing is long overdue anyway.
Sooner than responding with a "tiresome response" for those of us who havent seen it before, wouldnt it be friendlier to not post, or indeed post in a more civil and friendly manner, I`m realtively new to the board . Good idea or bad idea, it was my suggestion, theres no call to be rude about these things, and in the longer term people will simply stop posting.
Indeed - as did I. You can predict where the rudeness or unpleasantness will come from, and you seem to have scored the jackpot from one or two of the usual suspects. Just as a brief aside, I notice the solicitor was complaining that the fine was at the level of the average weekly wage. Surely he mean't the average hourly rate of his profession?
I'll crawl back under my rock....
The UFN should be for the fare due; in this case the 1st Off Peak fare, not the Anytime fare.
It isn't always the case that the full fare can be demanded when a ticket is not valid; there are cases where a cheaper fare, or an excess fare, should be charged.
Indeed, but a ticket was not sold because he refused to buy one, that's why the UFN was filled out - and that will be for the full fare.
No, everyone grasped it, and indeed it’s a fairly poorly-thought out suggestion that has come up many times on the board. That’s why it’s generated a tiresome response from some people.
Buying in advance means that the TOC knows when you’ll be travelling. TOCs price these tickets to ensure you are incentivised to travel on less busy trains.
Your suggestion simply means everyone would just buy an advance ticket and pay the difference - but that of course only happens on the occasion you get a revenue check, which can vary between rarely and often. Not “always”.
Therefore the entire point of Advance tickets would be eviscerated from both a customer and business perspective. That’s why it’s a bad idea.
Actually, UFN's can be issued for Off-Peak and railcard discountes fares. I'm not saying they should be in this case, just that they are. One train company (not VT, that I am aware of) insists on their use as the means of payment as their revenue staff are not equipped to accept payments, and will refuse to accept payment (I am not making this up).
A TOC is a business Neil ?
TOCs price these tickets to ensure you are incentivised to travel on less busy trains.
As 45 minutes into the journey had been mentioned, I would wager that it was actually slightly more than that, and just after the train had left Stafford. This would only leave Milton Keynes as a potential option, and a not very helpful one at that.on this occasion the passenger should have been offered a between getting off at Stafford and waiting for the correct train