Excessing Railcard Discounted Tickets Used at an Invalid Time

[MrJeeves]

I do feel that part of the solution here is a technical one which is when a railcard discount is applied to an Anytime ticket which is subject to the minimum fare that a line appears under there saying words to the effect of: "This ticket is not valid before 10.00 due to the 16-25 Railcard Minimum Fare rule".

Part of the complexity also stems from how to handle tickets which have partial validity in, say, June and July. How do you word that message?

Maybe:

Railcard restrictions: tickets discounted below £12 are not valid prior to 10:00am Mon-Fri, excluding bank holidays and all dates within July and August.

 

[redreni]

Presumably the intent was to capture leisure travel while not losing money from commuting that was going to the railway anyway.

Does seem a bit daft though on routes where there are advances (which don't have the minimum fare rule) available up to departure for small amounts.

There is, of course, nothing to prevent underlying intentions being declared in T&Cs. It might make them easier to understand, not least by those who inherited responsibility for updating and applying them.

In many organisations, rules persist long after the last person who understood the reasons for them has left. Which is why nobody realises when the original reasoning no longer holds good.

 

[ainsworth74]

Part of the complexity also stems from how to handle tickets which have partial validity in, say, June and July. How do you word that message?

Maybe:

Yes that might be better

The main thing is, on the ticket, it should be clear that whilst it is branded as "Anytime" in this case there is an extra restriction that applies due to the railcard. So if you have a message on the ticket which is "This ticket is sold subject to the following Railcard restriction: [INSERT YOUR WORDING]" I think that would be better than the present situation where it just says "Valid at anytime" (or similar).

 

[Krokodil]

It was in reply to Bletchleyite saying if a PF cannot be issues then prosecutions should be next.
Impossible to MG if you cannot get details.

In 99% of the cases we're talking about the passenger has bought the ticket online. So there remains a way of obtaining the passenger's details.

You have to set the railcard type to set up the excess and our Worldline MTIS machines don't as far as I recall allow you to remove the railcard filter selection on the excess screen. I will have a play though and report back.

Our Star Zebra machines are the opposite - they automatically depopulate the railcard field when excessing. So you have to remember to repopulate it when doing (for example) an over-distance excess. It is a bit annoying.

When I've come across a genuine case where someone selected a child ticket by mistake (for example a passenger approaching me before boarding at an unstaffed station to tell me that they'd had a mix-up with the TVM) the workaround I've used is to treat it as if I am excessing from a 16-17 Saver.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2024 ==

How much would it cost the rail industry to simply stop applying that £12 minimum rule? If they're at all commercially minded I would suspect that they'd see an overall increase in rail travel by young people and probably see a net financial benefit.

They really don't seem to appreciate how customer unfriendly all these irritating "small print" restrictions are.

As far as I'm aware the minimum fare hasn't increased since 1993 (ignoring that there were two rates of minimum fare before 2009) so after quite a lot of fare rises in the meantime the proportion of revenue affected must be absolutely tiny. Especially with the proliferation of cheap advances (on which the minimum fare does not apply) at certain operators.

 

[BongoStar]

I think all the above ignores the fact that a railcard discount is something optional applied by and at the explicit request of the customer.

You could have (erronously/deliberately) bought an off peak when intending to travel peak. One could have erroneously bought a "not via London" when the intention wasn't the case. And I think that is why its allowed to excess such tickets.

However, how can one accidentally apply a railcard discount? And then claim they didn't know what they were requesting.

I am not a very old member of the forum, but as far as I can see, there hasn't been a post about anyone saying they bought and travelled on a Rail discounted Anytime ticket which was issued to them for a time that was not valid.

All I see are:
- selecting a railcard when they didn't have it
- selecting a railcard when it has expired
- selecting a travel time when it was valid/cheaper and then hopping to an earlier train
- a few cases of selecting a railcard other than the one they hold
- the odd ones where they had the railcard but forgot it on person

All the above will still persist no matter how much words you add to the ticket.

Happy to be corrected, but I doubt we will even find 10 such instances in the current year. It is quite probable that very few cases exist is because the staff are willing to use their discretion and let go the genuine mistakes - which again, is very rare in practise, because 90%(+/-) of consumers abide by the rules.

 

[redreni]

I think all the above ignores the fact that a railcard discount is something optional applied by and at the explicit request of the customer.

You could have (erronously/deliberately) bought an off peak when intending to travel peak. One could have erroneously bought a "not via London" when the intention wasn't the case. And I think that is why its allowed to excess such tickets.

However, how can one accidentally apply a railcard discount? And then claim they didn't know what they were requesting.

I am not a very old member of the forum, but as far as I can see, there hasn't been a post about anyone saying they bought and travelled on a Rail discounted Anytime ticket which was issued to them for a time that was not valid.

All I see are:
- selecting a railcard when they didn't have it
- selecting a railcard when it has expired
- selecting a travel time when it was valid/cheaper and then hopping to an earlier train
- a few cases of selecting a railcard other than the one they hold
- the odd ones where they had the railcard but forgot it on person

All the above will still persist no matter how much words you add to the ticket.

Happy to be corrected, but I doubt we will even find 10 such instances in the current year. It is quite probable that very few cases exist is because the staff are willing to use their discretion and let go the genuine mistakes - which again, is very rare in practise, because 90%(+/-) of consumers abide by the rules.

It's not at the explicit request of the customer, necessarily. Many of the ticketing apps and websites I use remember my Railcard and apply it automatically unless I explicitly ask them not to.

I'm really not following your point on the question of whether this is happening or not. It's all over the news! Whether cases have cropped up previously on this forum is of no relevance whatsoever.

To be clear, it is not necessary for those of us who say the way these tickets are sold is insufficiently clear to prove people have actually been misled. Whether it is sufficiently clear or not depends on what it says. No further evidence beyond the screenshots we've already looked at is necessary, imho.

Nor is it necessary for those of us who say the wording should be amended so as to be sufficiently clear to prove that even one person would thereby be prevented from travelling on a sub-£12 ticket with a 16-30 Railcard discount before 10am. Whether people refrain from doing so or not would be a matter for them. The point is, if the information provided at the point of sale were clear, that would remove one of the factors that fatally undermine Northern's position as things stand.

All they need then do is abide by the NRCoT and collect any excesses due before trying to do anything else, and all would be well.

 

[AdamWW]

To be clear, it is not necessary for those of us who say the way these tickets are sold is insufficiently clear to prove people have actually been misled. Whether it is sufficiently clear or not depends on what it says. No further evidence beyond the screenshots we've already looked at is necessary, imho.

Nor is it necessary for those of us who say the wording should be amended so as to be sufficiently clear to prove that even one person would thereby be prevented from travelling on a sub-£12 ticket with a 16-30 Railcard discount before 10am. Whether people refrain from doing so or not would be a matter for them. The point is, if the information provided at the point of sale were clear, that would remove one of the factors that fatally undermine Northern's position as things stand.

All they need then do is abide by the NRCoT and collect any excesses due before trying to do anything else, and all would be well.

Yes. It's very simple.

If you're a railway company (or for that matter any company, but most don't get to prosecute customers for breaching terms and conditions):
1) Follow your own rules
2) Don't lie to your customers
But if you do....
3) Don't prosecute them for failing to realise that you're lying.

And claiming that actually it's true on a subtle technicality doesn't count.

 

[Haywain]

If you're a railway company (or for that matter any company, but most don't get to prosecute customers for breaching terms and conditions):

Nobody gets to prosecute anyone for breaching terms and conditions, there has to be a criminal offence involved.

 

[redreni]

Nobody gets to prosecute anyone for breaching terms and conditions, there has to be a criminal offence involved.

Where else does it say you can't travel on an Anytime ticket discounted to less than £12 with a 16-30 Railcard before 10am Monday to Friday?

 

[Titfield]

How much would it cost the rail industry to simply stop applying that £12 minimum rule? If they're at all commercially minded I would suspect that they'd see an overall increase in rail travel by young people and probably see a net financial benefit.

They really don't seem to appreciate how customer unfriendly all these irritating "small print" restrictions are.

I often wonder what would happen in overall revenue terms if the time restriction (and min fare) was removed on all railcards?

Yes there would be some loss of revenue but equally would there be an increase in passenger numbers? Would these be new passengers or displaced (time shift) passengers?

Yes it may put more people on peak time trains but would this be hugely problematic given we are advised that due to wfh and flexi hours the number of commuters has decreased?

As part of fare simplification and making the job of tickets inspectors etc easier it would also deliver productivity benefits.

 

[Haywain]

Where else does it say you can't travel on an Anytime ticket discounted to less than £12 with a 16-30 Railcard before 10am Monday to Friday?

Where has anyone been prosecuted with that as the charge? To be clear, a breach of the terms and conditions may also be a criminal offence, but it is the breach of the law that gets charged, not the breach of the T&Cs.

 

[daveo]

"Simplification already exists in the sense that a Network card exists and (based on what the posts in this thread say) the sanction for mis-use is just an excess apparently."

So where do I get my Network card for travel from Lancaster?

 

[AdamWW]

Nobody gets to prosecute anyone for breaching terms and conditions, there has to be a criminal offence involved.

Yes.

And the railways benefit from laws that make it a criminal offence to breach some of the terms and conditions.

 

[rs101]

I often wonder what would happen in overall revenue terms if the time restriction (and min fare) was removed on all railcards?

Yes there would be some loss of revenue but equally would there be an increase in passenger numbers? Would these be new passengers or displaced (time shift) passengers?

Yes it may put more people on peak time trains but would this be hugely problematic given we are advised that due to wfh and flexi hours the number of commuters has decreased?

As part of fare simplification and making the job of tickets inspectors etc easier it would also deliver productivity benefits.

Switch to something like the Swiss Half Fare Travelcard?

https://www.sbb.ch/en/tickets-offers/travelcards/half-fare-travelcard.html

190/170 CHF (so £170/150), but gives half price travel on all SBB trains, boats and plusbuses for a year. Much more expensive to buy, but massively simpler and easier to implement.

Almost as though they want to encourage people to use their railways, something which doesn't seem to be the case here!

 

[redreni]

Wh

Switch to something like the Swiss Half Fare Travelcard?

https://www.sbb.ch/en/tickets-offers/travelcards/half-fare-travelcard.html

190/170 CHF (so £170/150), but gives half price travel on all SBB trains, boats and plusbuses for a year. Much more expensive to buy, but massively simpler and easier to implement.

Almost as though they want to encourage people to use their railways, something which doesn't seem to be the case here!

Tax the poor?

 

[ainsworth74]

The Forum has been approached by a journalist at The Telegraph who would be interested in speaking with anyone who may have been impacted by the issue of not being offered an excess when travelling with railcard discounted ticket at a time it is not valid (whether it be Northern or another TOC which is involved). If you'd like to be put in touch then either drop me a Conversation message or use the "Contact Us" button at the bottom of every page.

 

[BongoStar]

I'm really not following your point on the question of whether this is happening or not. It's all over the news! Whether cases have cropped up previously on this forum is of no relevance whatsoever

I think it's worth discussing what has happened and is happening rather than hypothetical cases which haven't happened. What is in the news is a case of someone selecting a journey which was cheaper and then travelling on a more expensive one. Had the passenger selected the correct time, he would not have been in that position. It is said he didn't even engage with ToCs and let it escalate to prosecution. Not much else to add there.

To be clear, it is not necessary for those of us who say the way these tickets are sold is insufficiently clear to prove people have actually been misled. Whether it is sufficiently clear or not depends on what it says. No further evidence beyond the screenshots we've already looked at is necessary, imho.

I have already raised this a number of times, but unless one has actually purchased a network card discounted ticket for travel before 10am and the system applied the discount and then the passenger was penalised, I can't fault the ToCs.

There is not a single railcard discounted ticket which has the discount wrongly applied when used as requested. All the screenshots/tickets I have seen are of using a correctly issued ticket at a wrong time then that stated at time of purchase. Whether that was deliberate, error or unplanned change doesn't negate the fact that the ticket, as issued for the request, was correct and didn't need any further disclaimer.


Selecting an 11am journey because it's cheaper and then getting on 8am is as close to trying to game system as it can be. Depending on the railcard and the journey, getting on an earlier train possibly also implies buying an offpeak ticket and getting on peak service. (This will definitely be the case if network card is misused as outlined in the news).

"Simplification already exists in the sense that a Network card exists and (based on what the posts in this thread say) the sanction for mis-use is just an excess apparently."

So where do I get my Network card for travel from Lancaster?

Similar queries have been asked by other members, so just responding to this one.
There is no obligation for ToCs to provide discounts other than those mandated by privatisation (Thanks to @Hadders clarification in post 186 on this). Network card and other regional cards are an offer but sadly they are seen as an entitlement. So not sure why the absence of something that was never a right be an issue.

 

[thedbdiboy]

How much would it cost the rail industry to simply stop applying that £12 minimum rule? If they're at all commercially minded I would suspect that they'd see an overall increase in rail travel by young people and probably see a net financial benefit.

They really don't seem to appreciate how customer unfriendly all these irritating "small print" restrictions are.

Changes such as this have to be signed off by the Treasury. TOCs lost any power to make such decisions when revenue was nationalised during COVID. I'll leave you to decide how 'commercially minded' they are.

 

[tspaul26]

Are you able to cite any authority for the proposition in bold?

I note that you have been unable (or are unwilling) to cite authority for the proposition you advance that these circumstances are incapable of constituting an offence or rendering the passenger liable to a penalty fare.

NRCoT tell you what *will* happen in these circumstances, and breaks these instances out from other ticketing matters to deal with them separately:

That is all very well, but what then do you make of regulations 3(2)(a)(i), (ii) and (iv) read in conjunction with regulations 4(1) and 5(1) of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018?

It is on these grounds that (I think) every Penalty Fare we have seen issued wrongly in those circumstances - and there are not many instances - has been overturned.

Again, what authority do you have for your assertion that a penalty fare cannot lawfully be issued in these circumstances?

This far we have only your asserted personal opinions as far as I can see, and they are not (quite frankly) all that convincing.

 

[redreni]

I think it's worth discussing what has happened and is happening rather than hypothetical cases which haven't happened. What is in the news is a case of someone selecting a journey which was cheaper and then travelling on a more expensive one. Had the passenger selected the correct time, he would not have been in that position. It is said he didn't even engage with ToCs and let it escalate to prosecution. Not much else to add there.



I have already raised this a number of times, but unless one has actually purchased a network card discounted ticket for travel before 10am and the system applied the discount and then the passenger was penalised, I can't fault the ToCs.

There is not a single railcard discounted ticket which has the discount wrongly applied when used as requested. All the screenshots/tickets I have seen are of using a correctly issued ticket at a wrong time then that stated at time of purchase. Whether that was deliberate, error or unplanned change doesn't negate the fact that the ticket, as issued for the request, was correct and didn't need any further disclaimer.


Selecting an 11am journey because it's cheaper and then getting on 8am is as close to trying to game system as it can be. Depending on the railcard and the journey, getting on an earlier train possibly also implies buying an offpeak ticket and getting on peak service. (This will definitely be the case if network card is misused as outlined in the news).

You are attaching unwarranted significance to the selection of a train by the customer at time of purchase. The customer is not obliged to pick a train that they intend to travel on.

If the customer has been making this journey quite happily over the summer and is used to seeing the same price on any train for an Anytime ticket, whether before or after 10am, there is absolutely no reason why they should pay any attention to the times when they purchase their ticket in the autumn. They may well search for the right date and leave the time unchanged, in which case if buying the ticket the previous day they will see departures around whatever time of day it is when they're buying the ticket and they will be perfectly entitled to select a train at random. And as has been pointed out, if they search in the hour or so before travel and select 'now' as the date and time of travel, Trainline will show them the first departure after 10am as the first option. There's no reason why they shouldn't pick it. They know they are buying an anytime ticket. They wouldn't select a departure time at all if the website or app didn't make them.

When a website sells a flexible ticket, there can be no assumption that the passenger necessarily intends to travel on the train they selected. They're not obliged to. Their rights as a consumer are not lessened if they don't intend to. The requirement to set out clearly any restrictions on the ticket's validity at the point of sale is not lessened by the fact the retailer has forced the customer to select a specific train, despite the fact they are buying a flexible ticket and may not know which train they will want or be able to take.

Similar queries have been asked by other members, so just responding to this one.
There is no obligation for ToCs to provide discounts other than those mandated by privatisation (Thanks to @Hadders clarification in post 186 on this). Network card and other regional cards are an offer but sadly they are seen as an entitlement. So not sure why the absence of something that was never a right be an issue.

There's no right for bread not to cost £1000 a loaf or for interest rates not to be 40%, but don't expect people to be happy about it if it happens.

 

[tspaul26]

I’m willing to bet that 100% of the population don’t read the pages of Ts and Cs for all the goods and services they buy.

You’ve lost that bet then. When may I expect payment?

 

[AlterEgo]

I note that you have been unable (or are unwilling) to cite authority for the proposition you advance that these circumstances are incapable of constituting an offence or rendering the passenger liable to a penalty fare.


That is all very well, but what then do you make of regulations 3(2)(a)(i), (ii) and (iv) read in conjunction with regulations 4(1) and 5(1) of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018?

I think they’re fundamentally at odds with the Conditions of Travel, which state without equivocation what will happen in those circumstances.

Again, what authority do you have for your assertion that a penalty fare cannot lawfully be issued in these circumstances?

This far we have only your asserted personal opinions as far as I can see, and they are not (quite frankly) all that convincing.

I note that you don’t go as far as to disagree with me in your post, or give either a personal or legal opinion.

Is your argument that a penalty fare can be issued in those circumstances? If so, why in our trigger happy railway world are they not, then, habitually issued in those circumstances? Why are RPIs instructed not to do this, and why, when they are mistakenly issued, do we find they are overturned on appeal, and the assessors agree with the reasoning that they were improperly issued?

 

[SLC001]

The BBC Business page has an article on the subject and not a bad one. It simplifies the discussion here to what is basically the fundamental issue.

How confusing rail tickets alienate passengers.

Despite what the name suggests, an Anytime train ticket does not always mean you can travel on the railway at any time - if you're using a young person's railcard.
Engineering graduate Sam Williamson discovered that earlier this week, when a train company told him he could face criminal prosecution for incorrectly using a ticket which cost him £1.90 less than it should have done.
And there are several other cases being shared on social media with people being told to pay hundreds by courts for underpaying fares by only a few pounds.
Sales agent Cerys Piper told The Bolton News, external she didn’t even know she was being prosecuted for incorrectly using her 16-25 railcard until contacted by a journalist.
She bought an Anytime Day Return ticket to travel to work in Wigan and used the railcard to get £1.60 off the £4.80 ticket price.
But before 10am, these railcards cannot be used to get discounts on Anytime tickets - which Cerys says she was unaware of. The court issued her a fine of £462.80 and she now has a criminal record.
At the heart of the matter is a ticketing system that customers think is too confusing and feels like it is trying to catch them out.
These are a few of the many difficulties passengers might encounter:

‘Anytime’ fares that can only be used at certain times of day depending on the type of railcard discount they have been bought with​

​

Tickets for a destination that are only valid if you travel via a particular station​

​

Train companies which let you buy tickets from an onboard conductor on some of their lines but not on others​

​

Some routes only allowing travel with printed, rather than digital, tickets​

Companies say passengers should check rules and regulations, which are freely available for people to read. Customers argue they are not made clear enough when buying tickets to begin with.
Typically a train company will write to a passenger who has been suspected of fare evasion by a conductor.
They will review the circumstances and decide whether to prosecute for evasion, for a byelaw offence - which is much less serious - or take another action, such as settling out of court or dropping the case entirely.
.........

Sometimes we get so bogged down in T&C and law and ignore the basic issue. Fares are too complex and in this case the use of the word Anytime is unfair, unclear, misleading. Simple as that and I am certain that the use of the word would be illegal on the unfair terms and conditions act 1977.

The test of fairness

A standard term is unfair 'if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'– Regulation 5(1). Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.

But I guess the poor passenger wouldn't think it is worth the candle to fight.

 

[redreni]

The BBC Business page has an article on the subject and not a bad one. It simplifies the discussion here to what is basically the fundamental issue.

How confusing rail tickets alienate passengers.


Sometimes we get so bogged down in T&C and law and ignore the basic issue. Fares are too complex and in this case the use of the word Anytime is unfair, unclear, misleading. Simple as that and I am certain that the use of the word would be illegal on the unfair terms and conditions act 1977.

The test of fairness

A standard term is unfair 'if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'– Regulation 5(1). Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.

But I guess the poor passenger wouldn't think it is worth the candle to fight.

The article wrongly makes 16-25 Railcard holders think they can't get a discount at all before 10am Monday to Friday. True in the specific case they're reporting on; untrue as a bald statement.

Moreover, before we can have simplification, we need a government that is committed to driving modal shift onto the railway and prepared to pay for it. Saying "we want simplicity" now will just lead to undesirable changes like the withdrawal of all flexible tickets and regulated fares, with only Advances remaining, the removal of Railcard discounts etc.

 

[SLC001]

And what is exactly wrong with that i.e. removing discounts? At present we have a system which is "criminalising" people making genuine mistakes. Your attitude smacks of I'm alright Jack, pull up the drawbridge. There will still be room for discounts and cheap fares where appropriate but capable of being fully understood as best as possible by all people, of all ages, with differing personal and health problems and in differing situations at the time the ticket is bought.

 

[redreni]

And what is exactly wrong with that i.e. removing discounts? At present we have a system which is "criminalising" people making genuine mistakes. Your attitude smacks of I'm alright Jack, pull up the drawbridge. There will still be room for discounts and cheap fares where appropriate but capable of being fully understood as best as possible by all people, of all ages, with differing personal and health problems and in differing situations at the time the ticket is bought.

I don't agree. If we want to keep the various discounts (most of which I don't benefit from personally as the bulk of my travel is commuting), we need to be smart about what we say when we're holding TOCs to account.

It doesn't matter what you mean by 'simplification', it's how it is likely to be heard and acted on. We'd get something that might or might not be simpler (see the East Coast Mainline for an example of what LNER regards as simpler) but the only thing you can be sure of is it will be more expensive, probably significantly so, especially for the groups you mention. Even if overt fare increases don't come immediately (as they have on the ECML), the new fares regime will be mainly or wholly unregulated, giving no protection against unconstrained fare increases in the future (as has happened on the ECML).

The immediate solution to the problem of people who clearly shouldn't be prosecuted being prosecuted is not to pontificate about fares reform; it is to apply pressure on Northern to cut it out! Other effective solutions in the longer term might include bringing some independence to prosecutorial decision making.

 

[AdamWW]

I note that you have been unable (or are unwilling) to cite authority for the proposition you advance that these circumstances are incapable of constituting an offence or rendering the passenger liable to a penalty fare.


That is all very well, but what then do you make of regulations 3(2)(a)(i), (ii) and (iv) read in conjunction with regulations 4(1) and 5(1) of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018?


Again, what authority do you have for your assertion that a penalty fare cannot lawfully be issued in these circumstances?

This far we have only your asserted personal opinions as far as I can see, and they are not (quite frankly) all that convincing.

I think one of us doesn't understand how the law works.

It might be me, so I'd be grateful for comments by anyone with legal knowledge on my argument here:

I think these are facts:

1) A contract voluntarily binds parties to act in ways that the law does not compel (otherwise a contract would be pointless)
2) The NRCoT makes it clear that the response to being presented with a (non advance) ticket being usd at the wrong time is to require the excess to be paid
3) If the penalty fare regulations permit a penalty to be issued, the railway would be acting within the law but in breach of contract
4) The remedy for this would be via civil law (breach of contract)

This is opinion:

If the above is true, it is immoral for the railway (particularly as a publicly funded entity) to behave in this way on the grounds that few people could afford step 4.

It is also unreasonable to expect an intending passenger to not only diligently read through the NRCoT but also consult leglslation to see if the NRCoT has only given a partial list of cirumstances in which penalty fares can be applied.

Final comments:

Possibly the consumar rights act does actually put the railway in criminal territory here.

Arguing that a penalty fare is valid seems like the argument that it's OK to say a ticket is valid at times it isn't, i.e. that the passenger should never take anything from the railway at face value but instead consult other sets of rules and make a judgement as to whether the railway is being misleading or not.

 

[Haywain]

It might be me, so I'd be grateful for comments by anyone with legal knowledge on my argument here:

I think these are facts:

1) A contract voluntarily binds parties to act in ways that the law does not compel (otherwise a contract would be pointless)
2) The NRCoT makes it clear that the response to being presented with a (non advance) ticket being usd at the wrong time is to require the excess to be paid
3) If the penalty fare regulations permit a penalty to be issued, the railway would be acting within the law but in breach of contract
4) The remedy for this would be via civil law (breach of contract)

A contract cannot compel any party to it to act in breach of the law.

 

[AdamWW]

A contract cannot compel any party to it to act in breach of the law.

This would only be relevant in this case if the penalty fare legislation allows no discretion and requires a penalty to be issued to someone who has a ticket which is invalid due to the time it is being used.

If this is the case then yes the railway must issue the penalty but it would appear that it has created a set of terms and conditions which it is forced to break in such circumstances. To use a non legal term, this would seem to be a bit daft.

 

[Haywain]

This would only be relevant in this case if the penalty fare legislation allows no discretion and requires a penalty to be issued to someone who has a ticket which is invalid due to the time it is being used.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at here but a contract is a minimum set of requirements, essentially. Nobody is going to complain if the result they get is better than that specified.