Father who bought first-class ticket fined £484 - for getting on the wrong train

[Deerfold]

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.

 

[BestWestern]

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.

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?

 

[shredder1]

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.

Ah I see what you are saying now, a fee is fine, providing its realistic, but I don`t believe cancelling the original ticket is reasonable if you see what I mean and it would have to be paid before you boarded the train of course.

 

[shredder1]

But with your system, buying an advance offers no loss of flexibility.

Well yes of course, if I can pay the difference before boarding a different train to that of the advanced, but I don`t think you are allowed to do this are you?.

 

[Wombat]

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?

The article certainly doesn't seem to think so:

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.”

I did also read the rest of the thread before posting, but it's possible that I missed something.

 

[yorkie]

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!

 

[Puffing Devil]

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.

The article is a very one sided story - I would be very keen to hear from the staff in Liverpool who inspected the tickets and the Train Manager.

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!

Indeed. Having had the benefit of reading the Virgin Revenue Protection Policy (thanks to furlong!) I see this:

If you can’t produce a valid ticket, we may issue an Unpaid Fare Notice at our discretion​

and the UFN does seem to be tied into their prosecution process.

I can imagine that the offer to buy another ticket (possibly off peak) was rejected as the customer wanted to upgrade their existing advances, which is not an option. Impasse reached, UFN issued as no valid ticket and the standard procedure was followed:

The amount due is the applicable Anytime Single fare (Standard or First Class as appropriate)
for the journey being made on our network.​

We'll never know the full story. I do know that many lawyers do not properly understand criminal law and even fewer understand the intricacies of railway ticketing, including thier own liabilities and responsibilities.

 

[yorkie]

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.

 

[gray1404]

My view is that on this occasion the passenger should have been offered a between getting off at Stafford and waiting for the correct train (this would have been good customer service) or charged the 1st Off Peak Single fare, certainly not the 1st Anytime Single fare (which would have been the 'correct' thing to do).

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.

 

[sauropod99]

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.

 

[shredder1]

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.

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

 

[BestWestern]

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.

'The matter being sorted on board', you say?

"You need to buy a new ticket, sir".
"No".

How do you propose that be 'sorted on board'? Ensuring that the train continues without being delayed over a ticketing matter, and having the issue dealt with at an appropriate location, is the correct way of approaching the situation.

 

[Puffing Devil]

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!

 

[yorkie]

...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.

 

[Puffing Devil]

You already can pay the difference if you wish to leave earlier, by paying a £10 fee.

Indeed you can, if you have a Paper Ticket and can visit a booking office and get them to make the amendment on the day, or have a mobile ticket and can make the changes online (VTWC). As we know, no changes possible on print at home tickets.

You still pay the £10, which may be a consideration on lower-priced tickets as a percentage premium. Eg trading a £10 advance to a £20 Walk-up would mean £30 overall.

 

[AlterEgo]

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

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.

 

[shredder1]

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!

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.

 

[shredder1]

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.

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

 

[shredder1]

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.

A TOC is a business Neil ?

 

[Aldaniti]

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....

 

[shredder1]

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....

No problem, I`m sure youre a decent enough chap in real life (Pssts, do you really live under a rock),

 

[IanD]

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.

Unless I'm missing something (which I usually am!) there is nothing in the article to say that he was travelling at a time when the Off Peak fare was available. It just says he was "on the way home". He may have stayed overnight in Liverpool and then taken a train due to arrive Euston before 1129 (eg he may have caught the 0847 instead of the 0947).

 

[Starmill]

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.

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).

 

[jon0844]

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.

Simply don't allow people to change their ticket on the train at all. If they wish to travel earlier and give up their seat reservations (if a train with electronic screens can have the reservations removed, perhaps) then they MUST get the ticket changed before boarding. Doing so then allows some flexibility and removes the chance of abuse.

Someone chancing it on the basis there may be no checks is no different to any other person without a valid ticket. And they are dealt with the same way if caught, not shown sympathy - except for when there are mitigating circumstances, like a late running train mistakenly taken by genuine mistake and so on.

You might even wish to offer some sort of ticket change (at a cost) for someone who misses their train (by their own fault) and has, say, a grace period of 15 or 20 minutes to get their ticket changed for a later service.

That way the railway can be seen to be fair, but also not get taken for a ride.

 

[AlterEgo]

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).

They can be, in general, but on VTWC, they won’t be. Their policy for years has been to charge the full Anytime fare to passengers without a valid ticket (I know the general rules on Advances changed a little while back but AFAIK Virgin did not change their UFN policy).

 

[Bletchleyite]

A TOC is a business Neil ?

Yes, it is. What else would it be?

 

[Starmill]

TOCs price these tickets to ensure you are incentivised to travel on less busy trains.

While this would be nice in practice, it's frequently not true. Advance tickets are sold to maximize profit. Managing loadings is a secondary concern to this. See, for example, the high price of the 0555 Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston. So many times I have been on it when there are large numbers of empty seats. And yet, tomorrow, no Advance tickets. Friday, the quietest morning of the week for trains to London, £95. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday next week, £115. Slim discount over the SOS or no discount at all - for a train with empty seats. People are not incentivised to travel on "less busy trains". VT are short run profit maximising.

A similar problem applies to the 0915 from Manchester Picc. The overcrowding on 4 days a week on the 0935 is absolutely awful. It got far worse after the 'railcard easement' was ended. And yet, the 0915 has Advance tickets on sale at £115 all next week. When you could take the train arriving 20 minutes later, buy a refundable, flexible ticket for £82.90. VT could offer far more cheap tickets on the 0915, which would be encouraging people to travel on a less busy train. Of course, they don't. Their only defense to this is that they offer cheaper tickets further ahead, which is fine if you are willing to buy your tickets with no right to a refund 6 months in advance, but I never do that, and I don't think most people do either.

I am not even criticising them for operating in a way that maximises short term profits, it's the way most businesses work. But don't try to claim they're doing it for some kind of nobler cause.

 

[Haywain]

on this occasion the passenger should have been offered a between getting off at Stafford and waiting for the correct train

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.

 

[shredder1]

Yes, it is. What else would it be?

I don`t know?