Travelling Short on Megatrain

[Old Timer]

Is it fare dodging? No; if anything it's the opposite. It's mileage dodging.

Are you for REAL ?

Avoiding paying less than the correct fare for the journey is fare evasion :roll::roll::roll::roll:

 

[jon0844]

Those T&Cs could still be contested too.

Many rules are not enforceable, but that doesn't stop people relying on people abiding by them regardless.

 

[Old Timer]

Not at all.

You enter a Contract. The Introduction to the NCoC makes it quite clear that you agree to abide by the rules of that Contract.

So in synopsis YOU are quite happy to go and buy the cheapest ticket which has very clear restrictions and then use it improperly and then argue that the Conditions are not enforcable ?

I really DO wonder what goes on in people's heads !

 

[yorkie]

I live betweem two railway stations. When travelling to London the decision as which one to leave from and which one to arrive back at oftern depends on family/friend arrangements as to who can drop me off or pick me up. As such it can even change during the day.

As long as I have a valid ticket to to/from the furthest destination I cannot see that I am doing anything wrong. In this thread (and in other threads) some seem to make out that I am a law breaker if I arrive/leave from the nearer station whether it be an AP ticket or a walk on saver I have. For some reason it appears to be lawful if it is a full fare ticket. The logic does escape me a bit

I agree. the railways are supposed to provide a service. try writing to your MP. We need to get the rules worded very clearly to allow this. it's worth fighting for.

 

[tony_mac]

I'd hardly called it buried. I guess we'll have to agree to differ.

No, I agree that it isn't buried here - that was just the general point that I was making.
I didn't see it, and it is possible to miss it, but it is reasonably visible and perfectly clear. I think it's possible that a court would find that it's not visible enough as you aren't directed to read that page before buying.

But try buying an advance ticket from thetrainline and see if you can find where it clearly says you can't finish short.

 

[Old Timer]

As long as I have a valid ticket to to/from the furthest destination I cannot see that I am doing anything wrong. In this thread (and in other threads) some seem to make out that I am a law breaker if I arrive/leave from the nearer station whether it be an AP ticket or a walk on saver I have. For some reason it appears to be lawful if it is a full fare ticket. The logic does escape me a bit

The logic is quite simple, really.

Cheap tickets are offered to encourage in general off peak passengers between various stations when there is spare seating capacity.

Very cheap ticketsa re offered as a means of generating specific traffic flows.

Very cheap tickets are only intended to be used between those points.

Really quite simple.

My local Sainsbury's is selling three bottles of selected beer for £5.

On your logic why not four ? Why isn't every beer priced the same,...why can't I get another beer at 3 for £5.

Its called marketing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But try buying an advance ticket from thetrainline and see if you can find where it clearly says you can't finish short.

Question ?

You buy a ticket from A to B WHY should it tell you you cannot get off at another stop ?

The expectation ius that you are making the journey A to B not trying to evade the correct fare to another station !

 

[WillPS]

Because the very simplest bit of logic I can conjour up suggests that my seat is good and paid for until Norwich. Nobody can make you sit there for that long, and I'm potentially doing a passenger getting on at Thetford a favour...

Against my better judgement, I've decided to buy two Norwich - Thetford singles anyway.

 

[313103]

Because the very simplest bit of logic I can conjour up suggests that my seat is good and paid for until Norwich. Nobody can make you sit there for that long, and I'm potentially doing a passenger getting on at Thetford a favour...

Against my better judgement, I've decided to buy two Norwich - Thetford singles anyway.

So your better judgement is to not bother to carry out the validity of the travel document, hmmmmm.

If your concerned about being ripped off by railway companies, why dont you 'EFF' the fare instead, if your not sure what im talking about there are many on here that will tell you what it is and how to do it, i cant because i work in the industry.

 

[yorkie]

The passenger has bought a ticket to his ultimate destination, yet he is still being called an "effer" (fare evader). Only in the rail industry would this occur!!

The passenger will not, at any time, be on any train he has not paid to use. Yet he is still being accused of fare evading. Is that fair?

The question isn't about "the" (only one? haha!) "correct" (even more laughable!) fare being paid. It's about the ludicrous anti-customer practices that a court would very possibly rule unlawful if anyone ever took it that far.

Oh, and the shop comparison is perfectly valid. The equivalent is someone buying a 4-pack of something and being told they must consume all 4 otherwise they are a shop lifter. It may be wasteful not to consume all 4 but to suggest that they are depriving the shop of revenue if 3 individual packs cost more, is slanderous.

 

[theblackwatch]

The passenger has bought a ticket to his ultimate destination, yet he is still being called an "effer" (fare evader). Only in the rail industry would this occur!!

The passenger will not, at any time, be on any train he has not paid to use. Yet he is still being accused of fare evading. Is that fair?

The question isn't about "the" (only one? haha!) "correct" (even more laughable!) fare being paid. It's about the ludicrous anti-customer practices that a court would very possibly rule unlawful if anyone ever took it that far.

Oh, and the shop comparison is perfectly valid. The equivalent is someone buying a 4-pack of something and being told they must consume all 4 otherwise they are a shop lifter. It may be wasteful not to consume all 4 but to suggest that they are depriving the shop of revenue if 3 individual packs cost more, is slanderous.

Unlike the tickets mentioned in the 'starting short' thread, the rules regarding this ticket are very specific in that You must board and alight at these points, and it is a condition of travel on megatrain that you may not board or alight at other points on the route. If you do not agree with this, the simple answer is to purchase a different type of ticket for the journey.

 

[WillPS]

I have said it once, I will say it again:
There is no question about whether the rules allow it or not. I am crystal clear on the rules, and my original question states my desire to deviate from them.

 

[Old Timer]

I don't understand why you are asking the question.

The ticket is sold on the basis you travel to Norwich. It quite clearly states that it may not be used to travel to any other station.

You accept so yourself.

The issue is that your journey is actually NOT to Norwich but to Thetford, and that is the ticket you should buy.

The passenger has bought a ticket to his ultimate destination, yet he is still being called an "effer" (fare evader). Only in the rail industry would this occur!!

The passenger will not, at any time, be on any train he has not paid to use. Yet he is still being accused of fare evading. Is that fair?

The question isn't about "the" (only one? haha!) "correct" (even more laughable!) fare being paid. It's about the ludicrous anti-customer practices that a court would very possibly rule unlawful if anyone ever took it that far.

Oh, and the shop comparison is perfectly valid. The equivalent is someone buying a 4-pack of something and being told they must consume all 4 otherwise they are a shop lifter. It may be wasteful not to consume all 4 but to suggest that they are depriving the shop of revenue if 3 individual packs cost more, is slanderous.

Two points.

Firstly the passenger is buying a ticket that quite clearly states it cannot be used for any other journey. Everyone seems able to appreciate that point....except you ?

Secondly you continue to state that the NCoCs would be easily challenged in Court, and indeed this is your argument on most things. You continue to tell us that they are unfair, yet we are also told that they were re-written to suit so called Consumer protection laws. You cannot have it both ways, despite your best attempts. So tell you what why not just lets forget that they exist and do as we all please, guided by your goodself of course as to what is legal.

On the basis of your approach the passenger must always be right and win even when the glaringly want to break very specific conditions of sale, that they accept when they buy the ticket. If of course we get picked up we can argue that any excess or Prosecution is anti-passenger and not customer friendly, and in any case no Court would back the Railway anyway.

Why do we bother with Laws ?

By the way can you now tell us exactly what parts of the NCoC you actually agree with, and what constitutes improper travel ?

As usual you take the supermarket example out of context in order to make a point that was never intended but which serves to defend your position against other logic.

 

[paul1609]

I think that the Megatrain site makes clear that the normal national conditions are ammended for megatrain customers and gives a fair stab at why you cant alight/ join at intermediate stations. I'm undecided if it would be better for stagecoach to abandon Megatrain and just offer standard advance tickets;
"My reservation states the main terminus; can I board elsewhere?
Please note that the departure and arrival times displayed are for the main terminus points you selected. You must board and alight at these points, and it is a condition of travel on megatrain that you may not board or alight at other points on the route. If travelling on services operated by East Midlands Trains, you will be charged the full single fare for the actual journey made. On services operated by South West trains Penalty fares will apply if passengers alight or board at any other points along the route, other than the stations listed on the tickets.

Why can't I get on or off the train at intermediate stations?
megatrain is a simple low-cost inter-city fare like the successful megabus which has been run by Stagecoach for over two years. It is not expected to be highly profitable and must attract a good number of new customers to justify itself. In order to do that, it needs to be kept simple for passengers booking and simple for our staff to implement and monitor. Therefore, megatrain is only being offered on lightly loaded trains and between certain origins and destinations only. Should the extension of the initial megatrain routes prove popular with our passengers, we may extend to offer to more places."

 

[yorkie]

"Your honour, we have to find this person guilty of fare evading, because we have to keep our tickets simple. This person has paid for a journey to Thetford via Norwich, and got off at Thetford, but he didn't double-back to Norwich. Please find him guilty of this terrible crime."

I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't deny it is against the rules. But I'd be shocked if a court found someone guilty of fare evading in the circumstances described here. There is no fare evasion.

 

[Helvellyn]

I'd be shocked if a court found someone guilty of fare evading in the circumstances described here. There is no fare evasion.

You state this in a few threads, that various fare issues won't stand up in Court. Willing to test it?


The issue with megatrain is that the passenger is buying a ticket and agreeing to Travel from A to B. That's the basic T&Cs of the product, and the expectation is that the purchaser will make that complete journey. Even by having a Norwich-Thetford ticket, and getting off the megatrain short, that is going against the conditions that were agreed to at the time of purchase.

I believe revenue from megatrain goes direct to Stagecoach, bypassing SWT and EMT. This is one of the reasons the product is specifically for travel between two defined points. Get off anywhere else, or travel on another train, and that is why SWT and EMT will treat the passenger as having no ticket held. That is also one of the reasons I believe it is classed as an 'experimental' ticket type.

 

[Old Timer]

"Your honour, we have to find this person guilty of fare evading, because we have to keep our tickets simple. This person has paid for a journey to Thetford via Norwich, and got off at Thetford, but he didn't double-back to Norwich. Please find him guilty of this terrible crime."

I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't deny it is against the rules. But I'd be shocked if a court found someone guilty of fare evading in the circumstances described here. There is no fare evasion.

The fare evaded is the difference between what was paid and what the proper cost of the appropriate ticket is to Thetford.

"Your honour this person did on such and such a date, contrary to Section 2 (1) (a) of the Theft Act 1978, dishonestly obtain a railway journey from X to Thetford by virtue of buying a railway ticket from X to Norwich, this being only valid for this journey and not valid to travel to Thetford and thus deprived (East Midlands trains, et al) of the sum of £ccc this being the fare that should have been paid for the actual journey undertaken.

The accused knowingly accepted the conditions of issue of the ticket and set out with dishonest intent to evade the payment of the correct fare for the journey. The accused also contravened Section 1 Clause A2 of the National Conditions of Carriage, which prohibits the use of that particular ticket other than as permitted by the terms and conditions under which the ticket was issued.

Furthermore your Honour, the accused was assisted in the act by the by co-accused, who encouraged and facilitated the evasion of the correct fare, contrary to section 2 (4) of the Theft Act 1978."



Your ball !

 

[yorkie]

But didn't you read where the OP said he bought tickets back from Norwich to Thetford? So he HAS paid the correct fare. There is no issue over the fare at all. The issue is that he is not doubling-back between Thetford and Norwich. They cannot argue he hasn't paid the correct fare.

 

[Old Timer]

But didn't you read where the OP said he bought tickets back from Norwich to Thetford? So he HAS paid the correct fare. There is no issue over the fare at all. The issue is that he is not doubling-back between Thetford and Norwich. They cannot argue he hasn't paid the correct fare.

Yes but the debate developed as to the legitimacy of alighting at Thetford on the outward journey.

 

[yorkie]

Yes but the debate developed as to the legitimacy of alighting at Thetford on the outward journey.

Which I don't deny is against the terms. But if they were to attempt to prosecute, it would be difficult for them to do so. They couldn't argue the correct fare wasn't paid. I believe it would be a civil matter, and one where the TOC would not risk losing so I suspect they wouldn't even try it.

 

[Old Timer]

Which I don't deny is against the terms. But if they were to attempt to prosecute, it would be difficult for them to do so. They couldn't argue the correct fare wasn't paid. I believe it would be a civil matter, and one where the TOC would not risk losing so I suspect they wouldn't even try it.

There is no argument the correct fare wasn't paid.

Just compare the fares for the two journeys.

If the further journey is cheaper then its fare evasion because the correct fare for the journey being undertaken has not been paid. That is all that has to be proven under Law to be successful. Appeals can only proceed against the penalty imposed. You cannot appeal the application of the Law which is absolute, e.g. if you have obtained pecuniary advantage then that is demonstrative of theft. It is exactly the same as using someone's telephone and failing to pay, and it is how people who run up huge bills on their employers phones are charged.

The words formed the backbone of so many Prosecutions I have known.

Why go down the Civil recovery route when there is Criminal Law that has been created precisely for such events, and the costs are borne by the Crown rather than the Company.

 

[yorkie]

There is no argument the correct fare wasn't paid.

The OP said he has also bought an additional ticket (that won't be used) from Norwich to Thetford so he can argue he has paid the "correct" fare to Thetford (via Norwich - a longer distance).

The fare he has paid is through Thetford, to Norwich, then back to Thetford. He has bought a ticket to Thetford. He has paid the correct fare to Thetford. He is valid to Thetford and he can legitimately exit at Thetford.

What he is doing is making his journey quicker by not doing part of the journey that he has paid for in the first ticket and by not carrying out the journey paid for in the 2nd ticket, thus avoiding doubling-back. He has paid more than he would have paid had the ticket been subject to the more general terms that you can finish short. He is only guilty of breaking a condition that he can't terminate short, but he has paid the correct fare by buying an additional ticket to that destination. This condition is not one that is present in tickets generally and it is explicitly permitted unless a restriction prevents it, it is only explitily prohibited for Megatrain tickets (and implied in certain other tickets such as Advance and outward portions of selected Off Peak tickets). I doubt someone can be prosecuted for a minor breach of such a term, and no claim can be made that the OP doesn't have a ticket valid on the train he is on and no claim can be made that the OP hasn't paid a correct fare to Thetford. It would surely be a civil matter, and one that I believe the TOC would never take to court, because there would surely be concerns that it would not be a watertight case by any means and the risk to the company of losing is likely to be considered too great. The bad press the TOC would recieve would not be welcomed by the TOC.

The customer is NOT debating if the terms allow it, what is being debated is the potential concequences. We've all had our say in what the potential concequences are. I suggest we now wait until the journey is concluded and see what the outcome is.

For the past few posts nothing new has been debated, and we're just repeating things already discussed to death in previous topics.

I can sell you on ebay a computer and demand that you use it continuously without a break for a period of 1 month. You may then buy it and deem that demand to be unreasonable and not comply. It is your risk to take whether or not I could take you to court over it, but I would doubt that I would succeed and if I attempted it I would get bad publicity. The debate is not whether you breached the terms, but what I could actually do about it. The answer would be very little.

 

[Old Timer]

The ultimate solution is quite proper, provided the passengers do travel via Norwich, however it was not the original solution, which was to terminate short as suggested by some on here.

The correct excess is the difference between what was paid and what the actual fare is, which is not via Norwich if you do not travel via Norwich. I would imagine your well quoted Consumer Laws would not recognise paying for a journey never taken as being "customer friendly"

If the passengers travel via Norwich then fine but if they arrive at Thetford with a ticket not valid for setting down, the correct excess is difference for the ACTUAL journey NOT Norwich to Thetford. I believe this is the correct interpretation.

By the way in Law there is no such concept as a "minor breach" this is something dreamt up to try to disguise the fact. In Law a breach of Contract is a breach. Magnitude is of no importance in demonstrating breach, only in determining quantum of damages. I am a Contracts Manager, this is my real job !

You treat the Law like some sort of butterfly. It is not. Contract law is quite clear. A Contract is binding upon both parties once accepted. By paying you accept unconditionally the terms. If you then fail to comply with the terms then you are in breach of Contract.

This is absolute. There is no wringing of hands before the Judge or the Magistrate, the facts are the facts in such cases.

Once you prove breach then the solution is the quantum of damages.

Items bought in a shop are bought under totally different terms to a railway ticket.

 

[WillPS]

This is all rather silly. I don't see how any judge would accept that by paying for a journey to Norwich I have not paid for my journey to Thetford - it is impossible to get a single train from the East Midlands to Norwich without first travelling to Thetford.

I agree with Yorkie, it's not something that would stand up in court.

 

[Old Timer]

This is all rather silly. I don't see how any judge would accept that by paying for a journey to Norwich I have not paid for my journey to Thetford - it is impossible to get a single train from the East Midlands to Norwich without first travelling to Thetford.

I agree with Yorkie, it's not something that would stand up in court.

You have not paid for the journey to Thetford. You have paid a very much reduced price for a tcket that is valid ONLY to Norwich, nowhere else, and you accept that condition when you buy the ticket.

Buying a rail ticket is not like buying something in a supermarket or a shop. You are actually entering into a formal contract in Law for a specific journey between specific points. That is why you cannot reuse an unused ticket and why there are restrictions on refunds.

Of course if you have experience in Prosecutions for fare evasion then you may have an opinion that is valid, however I have been involved in many Prosecutions for fare evasion over the years, and I can definitely tell you that the Law is quite clear.

If a TOC decides not to act on it, then that is there decision ultimately, however a Contract is a Contract. Next time you buy a car look at the small type.

As for the Prosecution of fare evaders, this is normally done in the Magistrates Court, unless the amount or the scale is great in which case it is referred to the Criminal Court.

Magistrates do not have the power to modify the Law, they simply apply it. All that has to be proven is loss. This is proven by comparing the fares, and in your case presenting the fact that the ticket was not valid for terminating short.

The fact that you have failed to comply with the conditions of issue and use of the ticket are clear prima facie evidence, and something from which you would find it very difficult to defend. For example what would your defence be for terminating short ??

"It was to save money".......at which point everything stops because by your own words you would have confirmed what I have said is the case all along.

Do you really think that those involved in Revenue Protection have not heard all of this before ?

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps the rule on stopping or starting short is one of those illogical laws one reads about which will eventually become irrelevant if enough people ignore it. My primary school teachers used to tell me about a law banning the consumption of mince pies that is still on the statute book dating from Cromwell's time.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I think if supermarkets were run by the clowns that actually take these rules seriously, then the supermarket chain would soon be going bust. It is no wonder the railway industry has such a bad reputation and atrociuos customer service. Just listen to yourselves arguing over this! And the only thing I consider not having been paid for, is the wearing out of the tarmac service of the platform at Thetford!

 

[robbob700]

I'm afraid railways have to realise that they are competing against cars. When you buy petrol you do not have to specify where you are going, nor the time of travel. You can also vary your route on a whim and decide to stop short of your original intended destination if you wish. If a driver was tolds that he could only buy cheap petrol if he drove 15 miles past his destination and then turned round and drove back he would think the seller was crazy.

 

[googolplex]

OldTimer: In Scotland there is a concept along the lines of a "minor breach" of contract. This is in comparison to a "material breach" of contract, whereby the other party can deem the contract to be terminated as a result of the breach. Unless terms are explicitly stated as material terms, the courts will decide whether or not they were, and consequently whether a breach was a material breach or not.

Additionally, I think it likely that some of the terms in the NRCoC would fall foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, if it can be shown that they create an imbalance of power in favour of the railway. If it ends up in court, it is likely to be similar to the currently ongoing legal debate regarding the fairness and legality of bank charges.

 

[WillPS]

Additionally, I think it likely that some of the terms in the NRCoC would fall foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, if it can be shown that they create an imbalance of power in favour of the railway. If it ends up in court, it is likely to be similar to the currently ongoing legal debate regarding the fairness and legality of bank charges.

My thoughts exactly. A contract is not absolute- if I purchase a ticket which allows a Stagecoach RPI to punch me in the face, would Stagecoach then have grounds to punch me in the face?

 

[Mojo]

At a risk of going off topic, one thing that annoys me are those signs that say "the property owners are not responsible for any injuries on these premises" which are infact pointless, you can't get rid of your obligations by putting up a sign if it was caused by your negligence; and if it wasn't caused by your negligence then you have no case in a court anyway!