Excess Fares Query - Appeal againt Penalty Charge at St Panc

[Greenback]

I'm not saying that this necessarily applies on this particular occasion, but a customer could legitimately not know they needed to go on past their season ticket boundary at the start. If I have a season from A-G, I might stop off at any point in between, then perhaps receive a call or text asking me to meet someone at J.

I believe it is reasonable for someone to attempt to buy an extension ticket at any intermediate station because of this.

I don't know what exact length of time should be considered 'reasonable' to queue in these circumstances, but I would say that having already waited for 10 minutes, and seen staff numbers reduce with the closure of a window, the OP had a choice of whether to miss their train (and alter their arrangements), or try and buy the ticket elsewhere.

This is another example of how the PF system is loaded in favour of the TOC's, and against the honest customer. TVM's cannot issue the sort of tickets the OP needed, many passengers prefer to deal with a human being, yet TOC's reduce ticket office hours and staffing levels anyway. Why shouldn't they when frustrated customers give up waiting, thus causing a penalty fare to be issued, which means far more revenue for the TOC.

 

[jon0844]

The journey here was Portslade - London: two or more tickets 'can' be one journey, even if they are not necessarily so. Of course, the place at which the journey started would be difficult to prove, but if we're holding the TOCs to the letter of the law then we should hold passengers to it too!

My issue is that if you had a normal ticket from Portslade to East Croydon, you'd start your journey, changing at Brighton. If you wanted to extend it afterwards (changing your mind on the way), you'd have to get off before the destination and buy one - and failing to do so would get you in trouble. Only if there was a long queue at the originating station might you have an excuse.

But, with a season, you can hop on and off at any station you want. There is no set journey - it's not just from A to B - it's anywhere inbetween, in any order or direction.

Thus, having arrived at Brighton and left through the gates, I firmly consider that to be the end of one journey and the start of another. If someone wants to be pedantic, make the passenger leave the station building and walk around the block and come back.

This morning, I left Hatfield and alighted at Potters Bar to get breakfast. I returned within 20 minutes to get the next King's Cross train. I then alighted at Finsbury Park and popped out for 5 minutes before getting the train to Old Street.

Was this one single journey or three individual ones? If I was stopped, would I have to say that I started my journey from Hatfield or Potters Bar? It would be quite easy if I'd bought a single Hatfield to London Terminals ticket but with a season?

 

[b0b]

Once again, we see a good customer of the railway be caught out by the Penalty Fare rules even though they made no attempt to avoid paying the correct fare. Time to end this nonsense.

Clearly, the penalty fare was morally wrong since the OP made a reasonable attempt to obtain the correct ticket prior to boarding the train service that caused him to overdistance his season ticket. I'm confused how Portslade is relevant here - by going to the booking office at Brighton, the OP was attempting to get a ticket for the Brighton-London journey he wished to make.

Or are we seriously arguing people are required to leave the train at every station en-route (even if the train does not call at that station) to make an attempt to acquire over distance excesses in order to avoid the PF?

Note; although the NRCOC states there is no maximum amount of waiting time that is reasonable, PF schemes are required to set such standards, and may not issue PFs if they do not meet those standards.

 

[Greenback]

Once again, we see a good customer of the railway be caught out by the Penalty Fare rules even though they made no attempt to avoid paying the correct fare. Time to end this nonsense.

Clearly, the penalty fare was morally wrong since the OP made a reasonable attempt to obtain the correct ticket prior to boarding the train service that caused him to overdistance his season ticket. I'm confused how Portslade is relevant here - by going to the booking office at Brighton, the OP was attempting to get a ticket for the Brighton-London journey he wished to make.

Or are we seriously arguing people are required to leave the train at every station en-route (even if the train does not call at that station) to make an attempt to acquire over distance excesses in order to avoid the PF?

Note; although the NRCOC states there is no maximum amount of waiting time that is reasonable, PF schemes are required to set such standards, and may not issue PFs if they do not meet those standards.

I agree - in this instance Portslade is irrelevant. It's time the PF farce was ended!

 

[RJ]

For me, if the journey is considered to be starting at Brighton then, ignoring the technicalities about whether the PF was filled out correctly/incorrectly, then it wasn't appropriate. There is a set standard for acceptable queuing at the ticket office and this was not met. I'm not convinced about the relevance of various manual instructions related to penalty fares - are these available to the public? If not, I can't see how they can be considered appropriate regulations for issuing penalty fares. If they are, and they specifically state that long queues are not a reason for not having a ticket, then it seems unfair but also the regulations (I imagine that these regulations could be challengable though!)

Everything the public needs to know is contained in the NRCoC and the Railway Byelaws.

The ticket validity was between Portslade and East Croydon. The OP could break the journey as many times as he liked but it does not change the fact that Portslade was the earliest opportunity to get the appropriate extension. The people who claim Portslade is irrelevant are wrong and I'd like to ask what document backs up their claim that it was not the earliest opportunity to buy the extension? A customer starts a journey at Portslade with a Portslade - East Croydon ticket. The ticket office at Portslade was open. Now you think about that and tell me whether or not an opportunity to purchase a ticket at Portslade was available. Then read Condition 2 of the NRCoC and tell me again that Portslade is irrelevant. If you do then you are not offering the OP advice based upon relevant facts, you are telling them what they want to hear and what you are telling them has no veritable foundation.

I will re-iterate that a queue at the ticket office is not an acceptable reason for not getting a ticket and it does not say otherwise in the NRCoC or Railway Byelaws which are applicable to any customer who travels on a train with a TOC forming part of the ATOC. On the 2nd January this year, I arrived at Forest Hill at 08:00 to find the queue was well out of the ticket office, spiralling around the station forecourt and car park. The reason being the TVMs were all out of service. Because there was one ticket office window open, the gateline staff wouldn't let anyone through without a ticket. Fortunately this was the day Oyster PAYG was accepted and so I bypassed the queue by topping up at the newsagents a few metres away. There were at least 60 (irate) people in that queue but that doesn't mean it was ok to board the train with no ticket unless Southern had explicitly allowed it.

I think that the SRA Approved Code of Practice is a must read for anyone who's even thinking about offering advice to anyone aggrieved at getting a Penalty Fare, as it details what the appeals bodies must consider. This can be found at https://www.ircas.co.uk/docs/ias_codeofpractice.pdf

 

[Deerfold]

Everything the public needs to know is contained in the NRCoC and the Railway Byelaws.

The ticket validity was between Portslade and East Croydon. The OP could break the journey as many times as he liked but it does not change the fact that Portslade was the earliest opportunity to get the appropriate extension.

I used to live between Stevenage and Hitchin. For 3 years I had annual season tickets to London. For a month I tried using the bus to and from Stevenage (using a bus season ticket) instead of my ad hoc bus or walk to Hitchin. Would you consider these journeys to have started from Hitchin?

 

[John @ home]

Everything the public needs to know is contained in the NRCoC and the Railway Byelaws.

I don't agree. The statutory Railways (Penalty Fare) Regualtions, DfT's Penalty Fare Rules and the relevant TOC's Penalty Fares Scheme are all relevant documents which the public needs to be able to access.

 

[RJ]

I used to live between Stevenage and Hitchin. For 3 years I had annual season tickets to London. For a month I tried using the bus to and from Stevenage (using a bus season ticket) instead of my ad hoc bus or walk to Hitchin. Would you consider these journeys to have started from Hitchin?

No.

I don't agree. The statutory Railways (Penalty Fare) Regualtions, DfT's Penalty Fare Rules and the relevant TOC's Penalty Fares Scheme are all relevant documents which the public needs to be able to access.

Indeed and reading the NRCoC will tell you that.

 

[MikeWh]

The ticket validity was between Portslade and East Croydon. The OP could break the journey as many times as he liked but it does not change the fact that Portslade was the earliest opportunity to get the appropriate extension. The people who claim Portslade is irrelevant are wrong and I'd like to ask what document backs up their claim that it was not the earliest opportunity to buy the extension? A customer starts a journey at Portslade with a Portslade - East Croydon ticket. The ticket office at Portslade was open. Now you think about that and tell me whether or not an opportunity to purchase a ticket at Portslade was available. Then read Condition 2 of the NRCoC and tell me again that Portslade is irrelevant. If you do then you are not offering the OP advice based upon relevant facts, you are telling them what they want to hear and what you are telling them has no veritable foundation.

In the specific case of the journeys being undertaken Portslade was the first place that a purchase could have been made. However, as has been hinted by several people, plans can change and you only have to have a valid ticket for the full journey on a particular train. That train was the Brighton to St Pancras FCC train. The OP had a valid ticket for the journey on his train from Portslade to Brighton. Finally, as you are so insistant that anyone who thinks Portslade is irrelevant is wrong, you must therefore be saying that the PF was wrong because:

5. The penalty fare slip is filled out as being from “Brighton to St Pancras,”

clearly shows that the FCC RPI considered the journey to have started at Brighton.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And the FCC Penalty fares page explains why Portslade was irrelevant. The opening paragraph states:

We run a Penalty Fares Scheme on First Capital Connect routes. You must buy a valid train ticket (or Permit to Travel) for the whole journey you are making before you get on a train at any rail station served by First Capital Connect.

Portslade is not served by FCC. The FCC PF was only applicable to the journey operated by FCC.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Yet another thread on ticketing which demonstrates the ludicrous complexity of rules and the sheer bloody-mindedness of rail companies, their paid-per-fine officials, and their groupies like RJ who seem intent on punishing honest people.

Its very simple. A penalty fare has to be an absolute - if you don't have a valid ticket, its a PF. A clear simple and unambiguous rule that you can understand without having to have a PhD in British Railway Ticketing Theory. But the PF laws are NOT absolute - you have to have a valid ticket unless a long list of debatable conditions are invoked. It is preposterous, and if it wasn't for the TOCs employing small minded little sadists to try and ignore said list of conditions and try to pretend they are an absolute, then with a modicum of common sense it could be made to work.

The OP acted in a manner that was honest, logical and consistent with the ticketing practices carried out on his daily commute. 5 pages of arguments about sub clauses and competing interpretations of differing regulatory bodies is nuts. The PF is NOT an absolute and rules cannot be quited in a patronising manner claiming that they are.

 

[jon0844]

Portslade to Brighton was a separate journey to the Brighton to East Croydon one. And how is anyone EVER going to prove otherwise?

With a season, every time you get off, you can count that as a totally new journey. Such is the flexibility of a season ticket.

You can go back and forth as you want, taking every train to/from all day if you want to get 'value for money'.

Therefore, if you say you started from Brighton, nobody could possibly prove otherwise. Certainly the RPI at St Pancras can't. You could have started at ANY station from East Croydon back to Brighton and that wouldn't have been illegal or even suspicious.

@RJ, I can't believe you are still trying to say Portslade was the earliest possible opportunity. You might not have known you were going on to St Pancras until you'd got off at Brighton. And the earliest opportunity could have been the day before if you want to start getting silly about it.

 

[Greenback]

RJ, you can use bold type as much as you like, but it doesn;t mean you are right!

The first opportunity you have to buy a ticket for any journey is when you know you are making it! How can anyone really know when that is?! Do you really need a document to tell you that? Given some of your adventures with Oyster, I would have thought you would appreciate changes in travel plans!

 

[RJ]

Its very simple. A penalty fare has to be an absolute - if you don't have a valid ticket, its a PF. A clear simple and unambiguous rule that you can understand without having to have a PhD in British Railway Ticketing Theory.

Your idealistic theory is fundamentally flawed. There are some cases where a passenger travels without a valid ticket as there was genuinely no opportunity to purchase a valid ticket - closed booking office at point of boarding the train for example. You're saying that they should get PF'd too? What about passengers who may have difficulties with stairs etc. reaching a booking office mid-journey? You'd think it was ok for them to be subjected to a brutally rigid set of conditions? I cannot agree with this and I think there would be anarchy if this was the case.

Let's say the OP's journey started at Brighton. There was an opportunity to purchase a ticket there. A queue at the ticket office does not exemplify one from needing a valid ticket to board a train. I challenge anyone to find a clause within the passenger/TOC contract categorically stating that a five minute+ queue at a ticket office automatically means that you may undertake a journey without a valid ticket from a Penalty Fare station and not be liable to pay a Penalty Fare. Perhaps if you got permission from an authorised representative of the TOC then an exemption would have been made.

Penalty Fare Rules 2002
Regulation Of Railways Act 1889
The Railway Byelaws
The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 1994
National Rail Conditions Of Carriage
The TOC's Penalty Fare Scheme

I also recommend reading the SRA Approved Code Of Practice to see what the appeals people must take into account in order to fairly consider an appeal.

Yet another thread on ticketing which demonstrates the ludicrous complexity of rules and the sheer bloody-mindedness of rail companies, their paid-per-fine officials, and their groupies like RJ who seem intent on punishing honest people.

.....

It is preposterous, and if it wasn't for the TOCs employing small minded little sadists to try and ignore said list of conditions and try to pretend they are an absolute, then with a modicum of common sense it could be made to work.

You don't know very much about me, do you? For starters, I'm posting here of my own volition as I'm interested in the ticketing system. I'm not representing any TOC on here and resent being referred to as a "groupie" or "small minded sadist." Just because I'm offering my personal opinion on why the appeals body will reject this appeal, that does not mean that I am intent on punishing honest people and it takes some degree of ignorance for one believe the two are the same thing. The way I read the OP's original post, he was asking for advice for the appeal and not your idealistic views on what should have been done.

 

[Greenback]

Let's say the OP's journey started at Brighton. There was an opportunity to purchase a ticket there. A queue at the ticket office does not exemplify one from needing a valid ticket to board a train. I challenge anyone to find a clause within the passenger/TOC contract categorically stating that a five minute+ queue at a ticket office automatically means that you may undertake a journey without a valid ticket from a Penalty Fare station and not be liable to pay a Penalty Fare. Perhaps if you got permission for the representative of the TOC then an exemption would have been made

The central point here is whether it is reasonable for the appeal to be upheld on the basis that the OP could not buy the ticket they wanted form the machine, and that they had queued for more than 10 minutes and still not got near the ticket window. In my opinion, which you may not share, it is reasonable grounds for dismissing the PF.

I doubt there is any document that explicitly states any set time, but one of the great advantages of our elgal system and it;s reliance on the word reasonable is that each case should be looked at on its own merits. This should take into account the staffing levels and the time of day. In this instance, staffing leves were reducing, and presumably, the train service was as well. With no idea how long it will take to get served, how long a time is considered reasonable for a person to wait? How many trains woudl they have to miss, nad how late would they be, before it's considered reasonable to board a train? These are the questiosn that would be considered by any court beofre a judgement is made, regardless of what is written in various documents. I have also read judgements where the intention of the rules is given more weight than the rules themselves, often where poor wording and inconsistencies are noted by one side or the other.

As for permission from a TOC representative, that strikes me as rather an idealistic position! If it;s impossible to access a member of staff at the ticket office, how many staff do you think a customer will be able to find in the evening with the necessary authority to allow them to travel ticketless? What then happens if the customer meets an RPI form a different TOC? What if an RPI refuses to accept whatever permission some other member of staff provided? No, I don;t think that will solve anything at all!

 

[RJ]

In the specific case of the journeys being undertaken Portslade was the first place that a purchase could have been made. However, as has been hinted by several people, plans can change and you only have to have a valid ticket for the full journey on a particular train. That train was the Brighton to St Pancras FCC train. The OP had a valid ticket for the journey on his train from Portslade to Brighton. Finally, as you are so insistant that anyone who thinks Portslade is irrelevant is wrong, you must therefore be saying that the PF was wrong because:
clearly shows that the FCC RPI considered the journey to have started at Brighton.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And the FCC Penalty fares page explains why Portslade was irrelevant. The opening paragraph states:

Portslade is not served by FCC. The FCC PF was only applicable to the journey operated by FCC.

Ok well if we're looking at it like that, let us have a look at what is on the FCC Penalty Fares page.

We run a Penalty Fares Scheme on First Capital Connect routes. You must buy a valid train ticket (or Permit to Travel) for the whole journey you are making before you get on a train at any rail station served by First Capital Connect. If you do not have a valid ticket or Permit to Travel, you may have to pay a Penalty Fare of £20 or twice the full single fare to the next stop, whichever is the greater, plus the full single fare to complete your journey.

If there is a queue at the ticket office can I board the train without a valid ticket?

No. It is your responsibility to allow yourself sufficient time to buy a ticket before travelling. Automatic self-service ticket machines are provided at all stations as an additional method of buying a train ticket. Tickets can also be bought in advance of travel from ticket offices or online.

.

 

[Greenback]

In this case the OP allowed sufficient time, couldn't use the TVM to get the ticket he needed and probably didn;t know in advance that he was travelling!

 

[MikeWh]

In this case the OP allowed sufficient time, couldn't use the TVM to get the ticket he needed and probably didn;t know in advance that he was travelling!

Or certainly may not have known far enough in advance to buy a ticket online. Depending on vendor you may have to wait up to two hours to collect the ticket. The railway is supposed to offer a walk-on facility.

It seems that the whole crux of your argument, RJ, depends on the definition of journey. As that is something that we on here would really like clarified for resolution of several issues (eg split ticketing) I think it's a bit unwise to assume that it means one or other definition here.

 

[Greenback]

Or certainly may not have known far enough in advance to buy a ticket online. Depending on vendor you may have to wait up to two hours to collect the ticket. The railway is supposed to offer a walk-on facility.

It seems that the whole crux of your argument, RJ, depends on the definition of journey. As that is something that we on here would really like clarified for resolution of several issues (eg split ticketing) I think it's a bit unwise to assume that it means one or other definition here.

Even if the OP did know several hours before on this occasion, there must be many people who don't. What are they supposed to do? How long are they supposed to wait?

In my opinion, if the appeal were unsuccessful in these circumstances, it would be a bad day for justice. One of the problems with the PF system is that it is not absolute, and never can be, but is often policed by people who are absolute in their outlook, as in the cases we see on here like Jonmorris's incident. I think that the system was purposely designed this way originally, to eliminate inconsistency between individual members of BR staff. The appeals process was supposed to enable people to challenge wrongly issued PF's, and it's not fit for purpose if an appeal in this case doesn't succeed.

 

[jon0844]

You cannot buy a ticket extension from a TVM, which is quite a major issue - given the fact that the long queues are usually for a window and not a machine. If that is too long, you have machines available. But, when you cannot physically buy an extension from a TVM, I believe that is yet another strong defence.

However, I think that even if FCC says something you shouldn't take it as gospel. It's like shops saying 'you can't do this' with a small bit saying how it doesn't affect your statutory rights. Except the things they say usually are totally against your rights, but if you accept them and abide by them then they win.

Let's say a TVM could issue an extension, but was showing 'exact money only' or didn't take notes, or the card reader was faulty or the line to the bank was down for authorisation.. or whatever.. it seems they'd still issue the PF and say you could appeal. And if you did appeal, chances are you WOULD win.

However, is it right to make everyone have to go through the appeals process where they might NOT win (or not make argue their case well enough) because of a problem that wasn't theirs in the first place?

 

[Greenback]

You cannot buy a ticket extension from a TVM, which is quite a major issue - given the fact that the long queues are usually for a window and not a machine. If that is too long, you have machines available. But, when you cannot physically buy an extension from a TVM, I believe that is yet another strong defence.

However, I think that even if FCC says something you shouldn't take it as gospel. It's like shops saying 'you can't do this' with a small bit saying how it doesn't affect your statutory rights. Except the things they say usually are totally against your rights, but if you accept them and abide by them then they win.

Let's say a TVM could issue an extension, but was showing 'exact money only' or didn't take notes, or the card reader was faulty or the line to the bank was down for authorisation.. or whatever.. it seems they'd still issue the PF and say you could appeal. And if you did appeal, chances are you WOULD win.

However, is it right to make everyone have to go through the appeals process where they might NOT win (or not make argue their case well enough) because of a problem that wasn't theirs in the first place?

No, I don't think it's right to make everyone go through the appeals process, but then I think the PF system should be abolished competely! I'm pretty sure that we only see the tip of the iceberg on here, and that some people just don't bother with appeals, even when they are honest and in the right. Another reason, I suppose, why the TOC's like things the way they are.

I can see the sense in trying to remove the element of discretion from front line revenue staff. But that is a different matter to them being poorly trained and unwilling to check the facts, as happened in your case! This is why I think trying to get permission to board a train would be pretty pointless.

As I;ve said before, the PF system is no longer suitable (if it ever was) and I am very thankful we don't have it in these parts!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....And the FCC Penalty fares page explains why Portslade was irrelevant. The opening paragraph states:

We run a Penalty Fares Scheme on First Capital Connect routes. You must buy a valid train ticket (or Permit to Travel) for the whole journey you are making before you get on a train at any rail station served by First Capital Connect

Portslade is not served by FCC. The FCC PF was only applicable to the journey operated by FCC.

In which case the system has a problem.

Portslade is a Penalty Fares Scheme (PFS) station, the posters at the station will comfirm this.

I think it is therefore important that two issues are clarified.

- Can a TOC issue a Penalty Fare to someone who has started their journey from a station within a PFS, if that station is not part of their own PFS?

- How do you define 'a journey' and where it starts?

I think the second one has to be simple in this case, the place where the passenger entered the railway network, Portslade. The op didn't leave the station at Brighton, he merely went to buy a ticket, so the journey wasn't even broken at that point, at best it was diverted to a new destination, but that doesn't alter where it originated.

That being the case, if FCC can only issue Penalty fares for journeys starting at stations in their own PFS area, the penalty fare should not have been issued at all because they did not start there journey at a PFS station (as far as FCC is concerned).

However, if they can issue a Penalty Fare for 'a journey' starting at a PFS station outside of their own scheme, this one should have been made out as being from Portslade, not Brighton.

 

[RJ]

It seems that the whole crux of your argument, RJ, depends on the definition of journey. As that is something that we on here would really like clarified for resolution of several issues (eg split ticketing) I think it's a bit unwise to assume that it means one or other definition here.

I look at the merits of each individual situation, consider the conflict in line with the passenger/TOC contract as closely as I can then base my personal opinion upon the appeals body throwing the book at it, which they are within their right to do. Being realistic makes me a groupie/sad minded little sadist according to some people!

I don't post what I think they should do, because that is being idealistic and not realistic. Whilst it may provide some comfort to the OP, it is not at all relevant to what the policy the appeals body follows. Inevitably my realistic view will clash with those who have a grievance with the terms of the contract, but so long as I've told the OP everything I think is relevant, I'm not particularly fussed.

I've been travelling on my own throughout my teenage years on the railways and not once been Penalty Fared for holding an invalid ticket. As such, I don't think the contract is unreasonable or designed to catch people out. Of course there were occasions where I wasn't sure of something ticket wise, I was never afraid to ask the person in the ticket office or conductor/RPI on the train. Without reading the NRCoC, I knew that if I *chose* to get on a train without a valid ticket, it would be my own fault if I got a PF. It would not be my fault if I couldn't have bought a ticket and there was nobody to ask what to do and RPIs along the way never, ever penalised me when in this situation.

In order to have an easy life, I always make sure I'm in a state of imdemnity. I always either do things by the book or approach the person in authority if I want to do something that requires their discretion, I'll ask first. I will never just do what I like then then wait for them to come to me or be forced to go to them because of ticket barriers.

Being the person I am, in the OP's shoes I would have had it sorted at Portslade. Or if not, I would have taken one look at that ticket office queue at Brighton, got on the train to East Croydon then got off as it probably would have taken <10 minutes between getting off the train, going up to the ticket office and being back on the platform. There are alternatives routes to to the FCC which take roughly the same time if going to STP. I'd rather do that then have no valid ticket and enter into discussion with RPIs.

 

[Greenback]

I'm interested in the alternative route possibilities. I;m not totally familiar with the South East, i just have a rough geographical knowledge, but the jounrey planner on East Coast doesn't suggest a great deal of useful alternatives to the 1934 or 2004 direct trains.

I suspect that the average person with less knowledge of the railway system than you or I would either have done what the Op did, and just catch a train hoping to sort it out on board or at the destination, or just carry on in the wuaue and be at least half an hour late arriving in London. this is where a court would look at the intentions of the rules. Is it to delay people in making their journey? Is the intention to trap the unwary?
It;s my contention that, as the answer to these questions is 'no', then the PF is unsustainable. I may be wrong, it's impossible to predict a ruling, but most people would agree that PF's should not be used to punish people who have tried and failed to buy a ticket.

 

[RJ]

Regular trains to Victoria (they leave East Croydon every 3 - 10 minutes). Travel time 15 minutes. Victoria Line to KXSP. Travel time 8 minutes. Including transfers and waiting time, it's not much longer than the 35 minutes the FCC train takes to get to St Pancras, especially if they are every 30 minutes at that time of day. Valid journey with a Z1-5 TC.

 

[jon0844]

Are you telling me that you have to (or should) get off a train and wait for the next one? Maybe there will be one along in 10 minutes, and maybe you won't be able to get a seat on it. Maybe the next one is an hour. Whatever it is, from 3 minutes to 3 hours - that's the extra delay that affects YOU.

I was told to get off at Hatfield to get my ticket to WGC seeing as I couldn't get one at the start of the journey and I said that was crazy. The appeals panel agreed. FCC agreed on their online forum.

So it all comes down to where the journey started. I say it was Brighton. You say it was Portslade. Technically you are correct, but on a season ticket I say that you can count a new journey once you've exited the barriers.

The OP could say that they left the station and then it would definitely be a new journey. It may be a lie, but there's absolutely no way it can be proven! With a season, you can travel anywhere you like in any direction.

 

[RJ]

Are you telling me that you have to (or should) get off a train and wait for the next one? Maybe there will be one along in 10 minutes, and maybe you won't be able to get a seat on it. Maybe the next one is an hour. Whatever it is, from 3 minutes to 3 hours - that's the extra delay that affects YOU.

I was told to get off at Hatfield to get my ticket to WGC seeing as I couldn't get one at the start of the journey and I said that was crazy. The appeals panel agreed. FCC agreed on their online forum.

So it all comes down to where the journey started. I say it was Brighton. You say it was Portslade. Technically you are correct, but on a season ticket I say that you can count a new journey once you've exited the barriers.

The OP could say that they left the station and then it would definitely be a new journey. It may be a lie, but there's absolutely no way it can be proven! With a season, you can travel anywhere you like in any direction.

We're going in circles here. At Brighton there was an opportunity to purchase a ticket. AFAIK there is not a single clause in the passenger/TOC contract that allows passengers to travel without a valid ticket (without permission) because the ticket office queue was too long. If someone can prove otherwise then I'll happily admit that I'm wrong.

What exactly is your situation with regards to FCC?

 

[b0b]

We're going in circles here. At Brighton there was an opportunity to purchase a ticket. AFAIK there is not a single clause in the passenger/TOC contract that allows passengers to travel without a valid ticket (without permission) because the ticket office queue was too long. If someone can prove otherwise then I'll happily admit that I'm wrong.

its a requirement of any penalty fare scheme in operation:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/pf/penaltyfarespolicya?page=5

Note also, the requirement: "passengers must be given a sufficient opportunity to buy a ticket or permit to travel before they get on a penalty fares train" - so that ends the discussion on whether Portslade is relevant... the requirement is tied to trains..

edit: ok, it doesn't say you can travel without a ticket, but it does say you should NOT be charged a PF for doing so.

4.11 One of the SRA's three basic conditions for approving a penalty fares scheme is that passengers must be given a sufficient opportunity to buy a ticket or permit to travel before they get on a penalty fares train or enter a compulsory ticket area. Every penalty fares station must have sufficient facilities for selling tickets.

4.12 Where penalty fares apply, passengers must allow enough time to buy a ticket, including time to queue, if necessary. Under normal circumstances, passengers may still be charged a penalty fare if they join a train without a ticket, even if there was a queue at the ticket office or ticket machine. However, we expect operators to provide enough ticket windows, ticket machines and staff at staffed stations to meet the queuing standards set out in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement and their Passenger's Charter under normal circumstances. This standard is normally five minutes at peak times and three minutes at other times. If queues at a particular station regularly fail to meet these standards at certain times or days of the week, the operator must either take action to sort out the problem before a penalty fares scheme is introduced or make sure that passengers are not charged penalty fares when these queuing standards are not met. This might include providing extra staff or ticket machines. A penalty fares scheme must include arrangements for telling authorised collectors when long queues build up at ticket offices (see paragraph 4.33).

 

[RJ]

its a requirement of any penalty fare scheme in operation:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/pf/penaltyfarespolicya?page=5

Note also, the requirement: "passengers must be given a sufficient opportunity to buy a ticket or permit to travel before they get on a penalty fares train" - so that ends the discussion on whether Portslade is relevant... the requirement is tied to trains..

edit: ok, it doesn't say you can travel without a ticket, but it does say you should NOT be charged a PF for doing so.

That is not part of the contract between the passenger and the TOC. It's between the TOC and the DfT and thus is not relevant.

 

[b0b]

That is not part of the contract between the passenger and the TOC. It's between the TOC and the DfT and thus is not relevant.

You don't think the contract between the TOC and the DfT is not relevant to whether PF's can be charged?

 

[RJ]

You don't think the contract between the TOC and the DfT is not relevant to whether PF's can be charged?

What you quoted is not part of the passenger/TOC contract and therefore is not relevant to the OP's situation.