Excessing Railcard Discounted Tickets Used at an Invalid Time

[rs101]

Managed to get to my laptop, so a long post.

I am no expert in criminal law, just starting out in contract law (and that even business/commercial for now). However we must take a moment to understand why ToCs view that railcard discount misuse before 10am is not excess-able.

(I will keep the example limited to network card and probably refer to GWR and Reading to London Paddington or Waterloo below)

There is the reasonable assumption that anyone caught on a train before 10am with a railcard discounted ticket has done it previously and therefore allowing the passenger to excess it misses the change to investigate other instances. It is therefore completely reasonable that the passenger is not PF'ed even and details taken for further investigation.

Coming to the contractual part of it. You cannot excess something that does not exist.

We will leave aside purchases from third parties and focus on three most common methods to purchase a ticket.

1. On the counter - will not be a problem if you try to buy a ticket when not valid as you will be inquired about it.
2. At the TVM - for network card (and I have confirmed myself at Reading station this Friday), you will not be able to select the Network card discount option if you try to buy a ticket when its not valid. Having said that, if you try to buy one after 10am, then technically it is valid anytime, because from the moment it is issued, it is valid for anytime from then. To re-iterate, it will not issue you a ticket pre-10am with the discount
3. Online on GWR website. It clearly shows you on the mixing deck the various prices at various times. With a disclaimer that prices will change based on selection.


Now that we have got that out of the way, lets look at is common in all three methods above.

1. You need to specify your origin and destination
2. You need to specify when you intend to travel

And these are considered material conditions/representations. The whole contract is drafted based on these two inputs. All other items are other representations/conditions. I must emphasize the important distinction between material representations and other representations (reps for short for now).

Material reps are those that if altered even slightly, will change the decision/price/output of what is being discussed and the change, if indicated at the outset, would result in either party pricing the contract differently. It is mandatory for both parties to agree to even the slightest change in material reps.
Other reps are those that if altered slightly, would not change the eventual output and even if indicated at the outset, would not have resulted in a material change to the contract.

To the best of my knowledge, you cannot purchase a ticket without the two reps above being clear to both parties.

1. Origin and destination
No TVM or online retailer will sell you a ticket without specifying these and you might be laughed out of the queue at a counter. Fare experts can help me out, but in theory, you could buy a ticket from everywhere to everywhere, in the sense that a counter staff with enough time on their hand, may be able to sell you a set of 2-3 anytime tickets from the most north station in the country to the most south as an anytime return with break of journey permissible and perhaps you can use that to travel from anywhere to anywhere - a very expensive proposition if one wants to do.

2. When to travel
By this I do not mean the exact time, but rather where the intended time to travel falls within the fares available to issue. Going back to the methods of purcahse, if you are buying online, you must enter a time but for the other two, you only need to specify whether you are travelling peak or off peak (and when you intend to return where applicable).


Once the above two information is furnished by the customer, the ToC offers the fares it is willing to issue for the journey. These can vary based on:
1a. The origin and destination. Change these and the ToC will reprice the journey.
1b. The route taken. Change this and the ToC will reprice the journey.
2a. Whether the journey is peak or offpeak within the fare structure. Change this and the ToC will reprice the journey.
3. Class of journey (I will ignore this bit from below as all our discussion is on standard class).

There are other reps which if you change, will not result in a reprice, example seat selection, cycle rack, aisle/window etc. Change these and no reprice will happen.


In the fare offers, a customer is presented with the following options, with decreasing flexiblity:
1. Anytime / Any route permitted - no restrictions at all on when and how you travel (within routing reason)
2. Anytime / Specific route - no restriction on time, but limited to a specific route
3. Off peak / Any route - can travel at any time except peak time but can use any route
4. Off peak / Specific route - can travel at any time except peak time and limited to a specific route
5. Advance fare - travel restricted to a specific time and route. not valid in all other instances


A lot of words till now, but coming to the main point.

If a customer approaches a ticketing counter and tries to buy a ticket for travel at 9am with a network railcard, they will not be sold a ticket because such a fare offer does not exist. This is very important to grasp. Its not a question of not able to sell/buy, but fundamentally, staff/retailer can not sell what is not there. This ticket offer will exist from 10:01am onwards, but not before that.

And therefore, anyone getting on a 9am with a network discounted ticket is effectively boarding without a ticket.

This is very different from boarding a 9am with an offpeak, which the ToCs are willing to excess, because at 9am, a peak ticket exists for exactly the same journey for which the offpeak one is being used. Or for that matter, when the route is changed, the inspector may issue an excess for the correct route because both of them exist at the point in time the journey is being made. But at 9am, no "peak network railcard discounted fare" exists and therefore the question of excessing the post 10:01am ticket doesnt arise - its straight PF similar to holding no ticket or TIR if there is a cause to believe there are more instances. You can't excess to something that doesn't exist. There is the argument that why not allow them to excess to an anytime undiscounted fare, but thats inviting to "pay when challenged". In my view, the current rule is based on a framework that is tied to the fundamentals of ticket issuance and therefore provides a predictable outcome in what to do when something doesnt go per plan.

I know I have mentioned many time the importance of time selection, but where the whole "fare offer" is presented to the buyer based on just 2 key reps, it would be wrong to dismiss any of them as irrelevant.

Your first assumption (highlighted in bold) that anyone caught before 10am has done it previously and so is knowingly breaking the rules is astounding and completely unreasonable. Far more likely to be an innocent mistake, as we've seen here. A sensible solution would be for the TOC to have a method of recording the incident against the railcard number, then checking that record if it happens again and issuing a PF for subsequent breaches. If the onboard tech can't do that (poor signal, etc), then that's a failure of the TOC and they just have to excess again. That might encourage them to resolve the many poor signal areas.


You do not need to specify when you intend to travel. If I use the Greater Anglia website to look for a ticket from Colchester To London for tomorrow morning, with a Network Railcard discount, these are a couple of options:-



If I pick the after 10am departure, then the price changes as it applies the Railcard discount. Both clearly say "Travel any time of day" and "you can travel on any eligible train". No difference at all in the wording to suggest there are extra restrictions on the later train.

Personally, I often buy tickets the day before travelling (even if buying e-tickets) and rarely pick the actual departure time. I'm aware of the railcard restrictions, so just make sure I've selected a discounted ticket when booking. So I'm not specifying when I intend to travel.

 

[tspaul26]

No difference at all in the wording to suggest there are extra restrictions on the later train.

But there is a difference to indicate that the Network Railcard discount has been applied to the train departing after 10am, whereas that rubric does not appear when the pre-10am departure is selected (because the railcard cannot be used at that time, of course).

 

[rs101]

But there is a difference to indicate that the Network Railcard discount has been applied to the train departing after 10am, whereas that rubric does not appear when the pre-10am departure is selected (because the railcard cannot be used at that time, of course).

Then the text should clearly state that restrictions apply - it says the opposite.

 

[AlterEgo]

Northern are now reviewing all of the quite flagrantly incorrect prosecutions for people who have not been offered an excess fare in this circumstance. They are ceasing all prosecutions for this matter going forward.

The position has always been abundantly clear; these passengers have a time restricted ticket and their contract with the operator means they will be offered the chance to pay an excess fare.

Well done to the journalist who has been pushing this story, and the people here who have been persistent in pointing out that that’s exactly what the passenger’s contract says they have to pay!

Another scandal from our aggressive, passenger-hating railway which acts so rapaciously to counter its lack of funding. Another one in the eye for the obscurantists who have started from the position that the passenger is the bad guy and must get screwed all the time, and work back their logic from there.

Passengers may win payouts after rail firm broke its own fare rules

Prosecutions of those using a railcard for discounts on Northern Rail at wrong time of day are being withdrawn

www.telegraph.co.uk

Rail passengers may be in line for compensation after Northern Rail broke its own fare evasion rules to prosecute commuters.

All prosecutions of people accused of wrongfully using a 16-25 Railcard to obtain a discount at the wrong time of day are being withdrawn and thousands of previous cases are being reviewed, the company said on Monday.

The announcement comes after The Telegraph discovered Northern appeared to be breaking a rule whereby passengers with a railcard travelling on the wrong train must be offered the chance to pay back the difference on the spot.

The withdrawal of all live cases comes after the state-owned operator, which serves the north of England, threatened to prosecute a 22-year-old over a £1.90 ticket underpayment but did not allow him to make up the difference first

 

[jamiearmley]

Northern are now reviewing all of the quite flagrantly incorrect prosecutions for people who have not been offered an excess fare in this circumstance. They are ceasing all prosecutions for this matter going forward.

The position has always been abundantly clear; these passengers have a time restricted ticket and their contract with the operator means they will be offered the chance to pay an excess fare.

Well done to the journalist who has been pushing this story, and the people here who have been persistent in pointing out that that’s exactly what the passenger’s contract says they have to pay!

Another scandal from our aggressive, passenger-hating railway which acts so rapaciously to counter its lack of funding. Another one in the eye for the obscurantists who have started from the position that the passenger is the bad guy and must get screwed all the time, and work back their logic from there.

Passengers may win payouts after rail firm broke its own fare rules

Prosecutions of those using a railcard for discounts on Northern Rail at wrong time of day are being withdrawn

www.telegraph.co.uk

So does this mean that MG11s will still be issued, but the passenger will only be asked for the excess? Every time, or only the first time? How many times does the passenger have to be stopped and details taken before sanctions get tougher? Surely the remedy is to make the Railcard/ ticket restriction more prominent and less obscure, AS WELL AS charging an excess?

This seems reactionary, without a proper procedure in place going forward.

As an aside : there is an happy benefit to all of this. I've worked earlies all week, and only come across one 'Railcard before 10am'. (They were excessed, without issue). Normally, one encounters 20 or 30, all selecting later trains, all of whom are travelling earlier than the trains they selected, all before 10am - and 50% of whom, at a rough average, become combative and abusive at the suggestion that an excess is payable. It's been really nice this week not to be called a jobs worth, a c##t, an a#####le, p####k, etc etc.

If this media storm results in less abuse to traincrew, long may it continue.

 

[AlterEgo]

So does this mean that MG11s will still be issued, but the passenger will only be asked for the excess?

Why would you MG11 anyone for whom the proper remedy is an excess fare, which they are absolutely entitled to pay on board?

You don’t do this for people who break their journey when not entitled, or for being on a different geographic route. Neither of these are travel irregularities. This is no different. An excess is payable, so charge it.

 

[jamiearmley]

Why would you MG11 anyone for whom the proper remedy is an excess fare, which they are absolutely entitled to pay on board?

You don’t do this for people who break their journey when not entitled, or for being on a different geographic route. Neither of these are travel irregularities. This is no different. An excess is payable, so charge it.

Thankfully I don't MG11 people....

The majority of people who buy later travel earlier to circumvent the minimum fare do it knowingly to save money in my experience.

Generally, anyone I excess today I will have excessed at some point previously - the joy, if you will, of being a 'regional railways' local routes guard is that you see the same faces ad infinitum.

Where, then, is the deterrent?

I have no deterrent open to me - but the idea that the revenue teams are able to implement a deterrent has always seemed a good one.

As an aside, swear at me and I will always write you up. That's my red line...

 

[WelshBluebird]

Sounds like free game for anyone who wants to try to save a bit of money now then. Sending the message loud and clear that if you have such a railcard and want to travel in the peak - buy the cheaper ticket anyway, the worst that will happen is you'll just have to pay the difference if you get caught.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Where, then, is the deterrent?

Indeed.

Excessing in these circumstances is effectively the same as pay when challenged

 

[jamiearmley]

Sounds like free game for anyone who wants to try to save a bit of money now then. Sending the message loud and clear that if you have such a railcard and want to travel in the peak - buy the cheaper ticket anyway, the worst that will happen is you'll just have to pay the difference if you get caught.

That's exactly what happens with peak/off peak.

More conflict. Yay.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2024 ==

Indeed.

Excessing in these circumstances is effectively the same as pay when challenged

Spot on.

 

[furlong]

So next up, Merseyrail failing to sell change of route excesses...

But there is a difference to indicate that the Network Railcard discount has been applied to the train departing after 10am, whereas that rubric does not appear when the pre-10am departure is selected (because the railcard cannot be used at that time, of course).

Fortunately consumer law isn't so subtle. "Travel any time of day" is unqualified and even the reference to a Network Card merely says "savings applied" without mentioning any corresponding restrictions. There is one crucial distinction though - the physical railcard states on its face that it is not valid until 10am which makes it much easier for an inspector to explain the problem.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sounds like free game for anyone who wants to try to save a bit of money now then. Sending the message loud and clear that if you have such a railcard and want to travel in the peak - buy the cheaper ticket anyway, the worst that will happen is you'll just have to pay the difference if you get caught.

Already the case with breaking journey when not entitled, off peak during the peak, being on different geographic route. The railway could change the passenger contract but chooses not to. That’s why there’s a scandal. The passenger is absolutely entitled to pay the excess fare without any penalty.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2024 ==

Indeed.

Excessing in these circumstances is effectively the same as pay when challenged

So what? Nobody’s been cross when I’ve been excessing geographic restricted tickets on board before. Why is everyone so cross about this one?

Nobody bats an eyelid at people boarding at unstaffed and facility-less stations and only paying when approached either. Because they’re entitled to!

 

[800Travel]

I wish they would just scrap the minimum fare clause. I’ll continue to buy the right railcard/non railcard ticket depending on the time I intend to travel because it’s the right thing to do, but it slightly annoys me that some people will get away with paying a cheaper price due to lack of ticket checks and therefore no request to pay the excess.

 

[gingerheid]

Sounds like free game for anyone who wants to try to save a bit of money now then. Sending the message loud and clear that if you have such a railcard and want to travel in the peak - buy the cheaper ticket anyway, the worst that will happen is you'll just have to pay the difference if you get caught.

Thankfully the industry has the easy ability to fix this by not printing "Anytime" on tickets that aren't valid at any time.

 

[Halwynd]

Another scandal from our aggressive, passenger-hating railway which acts so rapaciously to counter its lack of funding. Another one in the eye for the obscurantists who have started from the position that the passenger is the bad guy and must get screwed all the time, and work back their logic from there.

100%.

A leader who presides over significant reputational damage to a business should do the honourable thing.

Never has the railway needed a Chris Green to lead it more than it does today.

 

[soil]

Sounds like free game for anyone who wants to try to save a bit of money now then. Sending the message loud and clear that if you have such a railcard and want to travel in the peak - buy the cheaper ticket anyway, the worst that will happen is you'll just have to pay the difference if you get caught.

Not sure I see this as a fatal issue.

I got on the train yesterday with a ticket. Other chap had no ticket. He was sold a ticket. Had he not been checked he might not have bought one at all. Rail industry loses money through fare evasion. Choice is there to pay staff to check tickets. Or not.

 

[ainsworth74]

I got on the train yesterday with a ticket. Other chap had no ticket. He was sold a ticket. Had he not been checked he might not have bought one at all. Rail industry loses money through fare evasion. Choice is there to pay staff to check tickets. Or not.

Quite, if TOCs are so worried about this just, I dunno, check tickets and then issue the excesses. Maybe the odd person will "get away with it". But if you're doing revenue protection properly people aren't going to "get away with it" because they'll be picked up by revenue checks. The trains I catch on Northern on a morning are nearly always checked by either RPIs or conductors. Ain't no-one travelling on one of those trains without getting picked up and made to pay an excess.

So this change means that, er, nothing changes as these people would still be detected. They just wouldn't be criminal prosecuted over pennies.

 

[tspaul26]

So next up, Merseyrail failing to sell change of route excesses...

I shall probably regret asking this as I perceive you to be rather set in your views, but here we go:

In your view, is an Anytime Day Single from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street route Via Runcorn a “valid travel ticket” for the purposes of the Penalty Fare Regulations if the passenger travels on a through Merseyrail service via Birkenhead?

Please explain your reasoning.

Fortunately consumer law isn't so subtle. "Travel any time of day" is unqualified and even the reference to a Network Card merely says "savings applied" without mentioning any corresponding restrictions. There is one crucial distinction though - the physical railcard states on its face that it is not valid until 10am which makes it much easier for an inspector to explain the problem.

I’m not convinced you really understand what “consumer law” actually is based on this very broad brush piece.

Perhaps you might explain what outcome you believe is established in this scenario (let us use the specific example journey which the screenshots related to as our starting assumptions) together with the legal basis and reasoning for your conclusion.

 

[Starmill]

As an aside, swear at me and I will always write you up. That's my red line...

Helpfully that's a Byelaw offence, unlike (by itself) the non-payment of the minimum fare against an otherwise valid ticket. Anyone doing that more than once should probably not be travelling at all, valid tickets or no.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2024 ==

Sounds like free game for anyone who wants to try to save a bit of money now then. Sending the message loud and clear that if you have such a railcard and want to travel in the peak - buy the cheaper ticket anyway, the worst that will happen is you'll just have to pay the difference if you get caught.

I think this is total hyperbole. Any repeat offenders will leave a trail of evidence to establish that they're lying, and can be charged with fraud or attempting to avoid paying the correct fares.

Of course, if you never catch someone in person then you'll not be able to do that either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2024 ==

I shall probably regret asking this as I perceive you to be rather set in your views, but here we go:

In your view, is an Anytime Day Single from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street route Via Runcorn a “valid travel ticket” for the purposes of the Penalty Fare Regulations if the passenger travels on a through Merseyrail service via Birkenhead?

Please explain your reasoning.


I’m not convinced you really understand what “consumer law” actually is based on this very broad brush piece.

Perhaps you might explain what outcome you believe is established in this scenario (let us use the specific example journey which the screenshots related to as our starting assumptions) together with the legal basis and reasoning for your conclusion.

I don't want to accuse you of anything unfair but I do wonder if your tone isn't a little too harsh here.

Can you please give me a bit more detail as to why you think a Chester to Liverpool Stations ticket on route Runcorn isn't valid via Birkenhead? Because as far as I can see Chester to Runcorn is perfectly valid via Birkenhead and it's perfectly permitted to use the permitted routes from origin to via point on the ticket then from the via point on the ticket to destination?

Perhaps you might take into account the possibility of your own having made a minor error when you write posts - it'd probably be more convincing if you did, unless you really are infallible!

 

[AlterEgo]

I think this is total hyperbole. Any repeat offenders will leave a trail of evidence to establish that they're lying, and can be charged with fraud or attempting to avoid paying the correct fares.

Of course, if you never catch someone in person then you'll not be able to do that either.

Passengers who either once, occasionally, or routinely

- travel at a time not allowed by a time-restricted ticket
- are found to be travelling on the wrong route on a geographically-restricted ticket
- break their journey when not entitled

are not committing any offence. To repeat, again, they are allowed to pay the excess fare on the spot to correct the irregularity, and not just this, the railway says that is what *will* happen. It's not an "out" for first time "transgressors", it is the stated, mandatory resolution, each and every time, to correct one's ticket and pay the proper fare.

This is why Penalty Fares are not issued in those circumstances, despite the tangenital discussion happening above. That is also why these prosecutions are being withdrawn.

It's a victory for common sense and a big yah boo sucks to the railway and the people who defend its greedy, dishonest pursuit of people. Some of us can read the Conditions! If you want this not to be the case, and to establish even more tasty deterrents and penalties for people who might otherwise be "getting away with it"...change the NRCoT!

 

[Starmill]

I wish they would just scrap the minimum fare clause.

I think Northern's extreme recourse to litigation over sums £3.90 and lower has made this outcome more likely. Northern have aroused great suspicion in the media now and will expose the entire railway industry to greater scrutiny in the future. Had Northern not been caught in flagrant breach of the law over their SJPNs, likely this story too would never have made cut through to the major news titles.

No doubt thanks directly to the actions of Northern senior management, many millions of pounds of public money will now, completely avoidably, be returned to people who did indeed set out originally to avoid paying the correct price for a ticket, but have chosen not to admit that, under both points.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2024 ==

Passengers who either once, occasionally, or routinely

- travel at a time not allowed by a time-restricted ticket
- are found to be travelling on the wrong route on a geographically-restricted ticket
- break their journey when not entitled

are not committing any offence. To repeat, again, they are allowed to pay the excess fare on the spot to correct the irregularity, and not just this, the railway says that is what *will* happen. It's not an "out" for first time "transgressors", it is the stated, mandatory resolution, each and every time, to correct one's ticket and pay the proper fare.

This is why Penalty Fares are not issued in those circumstances, despite the tangenital discussion happening above. That is also why these prosecutions are being withdrawn.

It's a victory for common sense and a big yah boo sucks to the railway and the people who defend its greedy, dishonest pursuit of people. Some of us can read the Conditions! If you want this not to be the case, and to establish even more tasty deterrents and penalties for people who might otherwise be "getting away with it"...change the NRCoT!

I'm not sure I disagree with any of that. I'm just saying that if the test for fraud were met, I'm leaving room for that offence to be charged. I can't comment directly on whether there'd definitely be a case where that test would be met as per your point, because, to me, it seems incredibly unlikely to arise, but perhaps I'll think it through.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2024 ==

Given the passenger has altered the contract without consent of ToC, my argument would be - is the initial contract even valid?

I think you've misunderstood what the contract is for. It's usually not amended by changing the time of departures slightly. That would only be the case if the original ticket were explicitly timebound to one time.

 

[Hadders]

Passengers who either once, occasionally, or routinely

- travel at a time not allowed by a time-restricted ticket
- are found to be travelling on the wrong route on a geographically-restricted ticket
- break their journey when not entitled

are not committing any offence. To repeat, again, they are allowed to pay the excess fare on the spot to correct the irregularity, and not just this, the railway says that is what *will* happen. It's not an "out" for first time "transgressors", it is the stated, mandatory resolution, each and every time, to correct one's ticket and pay the proper fare.

This is why Penalty Fares are not issued in those circumstances, despite the tangenital discussion happening above. That is also why these prosecutions are being withdrawn.

It's a victory for common sense and a big yah boo sucks to the railway and the people who defend its greedy, dishonest pursuit of people. Some of us can read the Conditions! If you want this not to be the case, and to establish even more tasty deterrents and penalties for people who might otherwise be "getting away with it"...change the NRCoT!

I agree with this. It might not be what the Train Companies or some people want to happen, but this is what the NRCoT says will happen.

 

[soil]

I'm not sure I disagree with any of that. I'm just saying that if the test for fraud were met, I'm leaving room for that offence to be charged. I can't comment directly on whether there'd definitely be a case where that test would be met as per your point, because, to me, it seems incredibly unlikely to arise, but perhaps I'll think it through.

what test for fraud, and which offence are you referring to?

 

[Starmill]

what test for fraud, and which offence are you referring to?

Any current offence under the fraud act. The test merely being if all of its elements are made out by the behaviour in question.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2024 ==

Quite, if TOCs are so worried about this just, I dunno, check tickets and then issue the excesses. Maybe the odd person will "get away with it". But if you're doing revenue protection properly people aren't going to "get away with it" because they'll be picked up by revenue checks. The trains I catch on Northern on a morning are nearly always checked by either RPIs or conductors. Ain't no-one travelling on one of those trains without getting picked up and made to pay an excess.

So this change means that, er, nothing changes as these people would still be detected. They just wouldn't be criminal prosecuted over pennies.

I think it's yet more evidence to point towards the private prosecutions being abused really isn't it? Isn't it funny how in the neighbouring jurisdiction where private prosecutions are subject to some judicial oversight there's no greater issues with any of this kind of fare evasion and also suspiciously few criminal penalties! I wonder what that suggests... It's almost like proactive ticket checking is by itself all of the deterrent and enforcement needed 99% of the time...

 

[wilbers]

Northern agrees to scrap railcard fare prosecutions

The rail operator says it is working with the government to simplify it price structure.

www.bbc.co.uk

Its been picked up by the BBC now.

Rail operator Northern is withdrawing all live prosecutions against passengers reported for using railcard discounts for on-peak services where the original fare was below £12.

“We understand that fares and ticketing across the railway can, at times, be difficult to understand, and we are reviewing our processes for ensuring compliance with ticket and railcard terms and conditions," a statement read.

“With regard to recent reported cases involving use of the 16-25 railcard with fares under £12 before 10am, we are withdrawing any live cases and will also look to review anyone who has been prosecuted previously on this specific issue.

“We are actively engaged with the government and industry to simplify fares to help customers.

 

[Kite159]

This is when the NRCOT are updated with condition 9.5 rewritten to remove the ability to simple excess a 'time restricted' ticket if you try and beat the system by selecting a post 10am departure on an app knowing full well you are using it before 10am when the railcard discount wouldn't apply.

Under the wording of making things 'simpler' with a minor uproar.

 

[Starmill]

This is when the NRCOT are updated with condition 9.5 rewritten to remove the ability to simple excess a 'time restricted' ticket if you try and beat the system by selecting a post 10am departure on an app knowing full well you are using it before 10am when the railcard discount wouldn't apply.

Under the wording of making things 'simpler' with a minor uproar.

Doing that after repayments of millions of pounds to people, some of whom were trying it on and have chosen not to admit that, is rather closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

 

[soil]

Any current offence under the fraud act. The test merely being if all of its elements are made out by the behaviour in question.

Well the Fraud Act relies on the Ivey test, which means objectively dishonest, based on the information in the suspect's possession.

Currently there are essentially three levels:

1. Byelaws (we are the railways and we like to prosecute people for fun, hahaha)
2. RoRA (fare evasion)
3. Fraud Act (long-term/serious fraud)

The question is whether there needs to be these three levels, and whether the railway has been abusing its specialist legislation. There is ample precedent on what is fraud or what is theft, but for specialist railway law there isn't, so the TOCs can bully and lie and prosecute thousands of people without basis in law.

That tends to point to repealing RoRA and upgrading the byelaw offence to "fare evasion" instead of allowing the (nationalised!) TOCs to be evil personified.

It's worth noting that the supermarkets etc. are plagued by zombie drug addict shoplifters who deprive them of stock, and there isn't a lot they can do about it, and the police will just ignore them, so given the lawless country that the UK has degenerated into, it's not really obvious given that shoplifting (under £200) is almost decriminalised, why the TOCs should be given such a preferential treatment in that they haven't typically lost the ability to sell the seat.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is when the NRCOT are updated with condition 9.5 rewritten to remove the ability to simple excess a 'time restricted' ticket if you try and beat the system by selecting a post 10am departure on an app knowing full well you are using it before 10am when the railcard discount wouldn't apply.

Under the wording of making things 'simpler' with a minor uproar.

This is unlikely to happen. Either the ability to excess goes away, or it becomes contingent on being able to do so only before the departure of one’s train. The latter feels more likely to me.

 

[Kite159]

Doing that after repayments of millions of pounds to people, some of whom were trying it on and have chosen not to admit that, is rather closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

They won't end up repaying millions of pounds to people, it will just be brushed under the large rug. The review will conclude "mistakes were made due to the confusing nature of a condition which has now been rewritten to avoid future confusion" as well as the minimum fare either becoming all day or the railcard banned for use for any tickets before 10am to keep things simple as part of a review of the varying T&Cs of the various railcards.

And everybody will be happy that things have been made so much simpler for the public to understand.

Heck lets follow the lead of LNER and do away with off-peak all together and only have anytime or advance fares available, that way there can be no confusion over when a ticket is valid. Simples.