CompactDstrxion
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 596
No. Darlington to Durham only has walk-up fares.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Guardian: "Penalised train passengers fight ticketing rules"
- Thread starter Squaddie
- Start date
- Status
No. Darlington to Durham only has walk-up fares.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
Passengers are told (at stations, online they should be in the T&Cs that they agree they have read) at the time of sale that the Advance tickets are non-refundable, that they are only for the specific services that have been booked and that any changes before the time of departure are subject to additional charge. If the passenger makes a mistake, it is the passenger's fault, not the TOC's, if the passenger is late it is the passenger that is at fault, not the TOCs.
Let's swing this round, how would you feel if the TOC wanted more from the contract because they were late or had cancelled the service? Not happy I bet? I think you would refuse to allow it (and rightly so), so why are the TOCs wrong for holding the passenger to the agreed terms?
You state it is unfair on the passenger as if the TOCs never lose out, but if the TOCs fail to hold up their end of the deal, they have to make other arrangements, possibly even pay out extra costs. The contract isn't as one sided as you seem to think.
I remember FTPE refunded 100% of the cost of my ticket because of a one hour delay a few years back, presumably you think it was unfair of me to hold FTPE to their contracted terms?
The TOCs gain nothing extra if the passenger keeps their end of the contract, nothing at all. But please, don't let me stop you painting a picture of the TOCs as the evil companies you seem to think they are.
If a passenger deliberately buys a ticket to Durham, which is cheaper than to Darlington and has a condition that it can't be used to Darlington, with the intention of getting off at Darlington, it boils down to little more than fare evasion.
If a passenger misses their train from Manchester to London they can board the next train if they have visited the ticket office before boarding the train and bought a new ticket (at a substantially lower price than the price onboard in most cases).
If a passenger turns up early, they can board an earlier train if they change the ticket at a ticket office before boarding the train (at a substantially lower price than onboard in most cases).
In the latter case the only amount they have paid over the walk up fare is the £10 admin fee per ticket, not the headline 100s of pounds often quoted by the media.
I say again, the TOCs gain nothing extra if the passenger keeps their end of the contract, nothing at all.
These "employees of the railway" and "enthusiasts" also buy flexible and Advance fares and for the most part have no problems with the TOCs while travelling, why? because they follow the terms of the ticket. The vast majority of passengers who follow the terms of an Advance ticket have trouble free journeys with no extra charge, and where there is an issue it is very rarely a problem with the ticket.
I try hard to make sure those I sell Advance tickets know the conditions of the ticket, but you would be very surprised to learn how many have no interest in waiting around to listen to them. I'll be honest, if they are "caught out" by "unknown conditions" that they agreed to at the time of sale, I no sympathy for them, but if they approach me before getting on the train to sort any issue out, I will do everything I can to help them out (usually resulting in a substantial reduction in cost compared to sorting it out on the train).
↑↑↑ Hear hear HHF. Well said.
And that's coming from one of the maligned enthusiasts. I buys me tickets and adhere to the conditions. Should 'life' get in the way then I take it on the chin and buy a new ticket or ask for discretion. If discretion isn't forthcoming then I make alternate arrangements.
What I don't do is board a train and hope for the best.
And that's coming from one of the maligned enthusiasts. I buys me tickets and adhere to the conditions. Should 'life' get in the way then I take it on the chin and buy a new ticket or ask for discretion. If discretion isn't forthcoming then I make alternate arrangements.
What I don't do is board a train and hope for the best.
Last edited:
Indeed most passengers have no problem with Advance tickets. A minority do, and whilst some like to think that they're all chancers (and no doubt many are), some are genuinely confused- generally irregular travellers. As I've said before, I believe a lot of these problems stem from NRE's and Thetrainline's habit of defaulting to the absolute cheapest fares, rather than the cheapest flexible fares. This means that those who "just want a ticket" end up with restrictive tickets without necessarily knowing they're tied to a specified service (don't start that they should read all the terms...), whilst others end up paying more than the flexible fare.
telstarbox
Established Member
There is a follow-up article in the Guardian today.
Lexyboy has pointed to the crucial issue; at one time, if you wanted a train ticket you would turn up at the station and buy one from a clerk, now prospective passengers are bombarded with adverts claiming that only idiots do that and savvy people buy them from the internet where they're a lot cheaper. When it doesn't work out I don't blame them for going back to the media, I certainly would as chances are it will portray me as an innocent rather than an idiot.
I realise that TOCs are not breaking any law by charging people ridiculous sums for short-riding, catching a train other than the booked one or forgetting a railcard, I simply state that it's unjust, immoral and totally disproportionate, having said that I've witnessed one or two incidents where ticket inspectors have explained this to a confused-looking passenger but then allowed them to continue their journey unmolested and uncharged, putting the exact location of these humanitarian glimpses on here would be a bit like telling egg-collectors where there's a nest of a rare breeding bird so I won't.
And it's a bit rich for contributors to talk about potential fare evasion when the majority of this forum is devoted to (legally) evading the correct fare as set by the appropriate TOC for the journey they are making.
I realise that TOCs are not breaking any law by charging people ridiculous sums for short-riding, catching a train other than the booked one or forgetting a railcard, I simply state that it's unjust, immoral and totally disproportionate, having said that I've witnessed one or two incidents where ticket inspectors have explained this to a confused-looking passenger but then allowed them to continue their journey unmolested and uncharged, putting the exact location of these humanitarian glimpses on here would be a bit like telling egg-collectors where there's a nest of a rare breeding bird so I won't.
And it's a bit rich for contributors to talk about potential fare evasion when the majority of this forum is devoted to (legally) evading the correct fare as set by the appropriate TOC for the journey they are making.
And a bigger cynic like me would think £20 London to Scotland is suspiciously cheap and meticulously check the terms and conditions. I don't doubt for a second that TOCs see it as a form of revenue but not that they plan it, like Dick Dastardly plants traps for wacky racers
It's denying a sale from Darlington to Durham. Break of journey is forbidden because they'd not be able to stop someone re-joining the train in peak hours.
With some countries' railways, it is permitted to "start short" or "stop short" even on 'cheap advance' tickets; however, it is not permitted to resume a journey once broken.
If the will was there, it would be possible to change the T & Cs in this regard; however, there is no incentive at all for the TOCs to do this.
One minor point is that it does appear that many TOCs act incorrectly in charging a Penalty Fare or full Anytime Single when a journey on an advance ticket is started or finished "short" on what would otherwise be the correct booked train.
The NRCoC specifically state that a passenger who breaks their journey when not entitled to do say "will be liable to pay an excess fare" of the difference between the fare paid and the cheapest walk-up ticket available immediately prior to boarding.
However, this does not preclude a TOC from simply prosecuting (or demanding a settlement amount in lieu of prosecution) a passenger who has broken their journey when not entitled to do so.
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Perhaps it's time the TOCs just did away with Advance tickets and sold everyone a full fare jobby with perhaps a 10 or 20% online discount?! If any case is brought successfully against the Advance regulations that will likely be the outcome, TOCs will not agree to just flog people a ticket for a fiver and let them travel whenever the hell they feel like it. Sadly, this whole issue is symptomatic of the grasping self-entitled mentality of some people in our society today. Rather than appreciate that they are getting a promotional ticket with a very heavy discount, these people instead seem to feel that they have a right to travel for peanuts come what may and seemingly view the standard price for their journey as something which should never apply to them. Let's hope the TOCs stand firm on this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/cartoon/2012/may/22/train-fare-not-fair-court
Ahh always a pleasure when the cartoonist gets things wrong.
Follow up story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/22/train-fare-dodging-innocent-passengers
400 complaints about this so far this year. Thats not too bad with say, 500 million rail journies completed this year so far.
And the reporting is still pathetic.
Ahh always a pleasure when the cartoonist gets things wrong.
Follow up story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/22/train-fare-dodging-innocent-passengers
400 complaints about this so far this year. Thats not too bad with say, 500 million rail journies completed this year so far.
And the reporting is still pathetic.
I though the Guardian was a decent paper that always got the facts right? Even the Daily Mail couldn't get this that wrong!
As HHF says above. The rail industry will pay for a taxi or hotel stay if they mess up and you can't get home (sure, some may make you jump through hoops but that's the subject of another thread), but a passenger thinks it is okay to vary the terms and conditions to suit them.
I've suggested a workaround that suits everyone, which I hope ATOC would consider, but I can't think of many (any) other situations where you buy a ticket for a specific time/date that can be altered by the customer without some sort of penalty or refusal.
Buy a ticket to see Chelsea play in the first round of the FA cup, but don't turn up - so travel to Germany and expect to use it for the Champions League final.
Buy a ticket to see the matinee performance at a theatre, but don't make it - so turn up for the evening show instead.
Buy a ticket to fly on Ryanair and fancy going a day earlier, so turn up then and barge through the gate saying 'I paid for my flight'.
Buy a ticket to see a film and then change your mind and go into another screen instead. The film you wanted to see had been playing for weeks, but the one you're now going to started showing only tonight and is full.
Nobody would ever consider doing any of the above. Okay, some might as society seems to be getting dumber by the year, but those that did would get NO sympathy when stopped or made to stump up more money. Yet mention the railway and it's suddenly fine - and it's just because the railway companies are so greedy. How dare they make 3% from every pound the customer spends (why doesn't anyone go moaning to Network Rail?).
Not that The Guardian would want to mention these facts, as their political views automatically mark any private company as made up of evil fat cats who are only looking out for their shareholders. Evil shareholders like you or me, or pension funds, or perhaps even the very people who try to ignore the T&Cs when it suits them...
(For the sake of anyone who came here from the Guardian website - I'm just an ordinary passenger. I don't work for the railway industry at all. In fact, I've had more than my fair share of problems with it, but that still doesn't make me expect to bend the rules to suit my needs or fix my mistakes)
Last edited:
MarkyMarkD
Member
You make a very good point. It would help everyone significantly if the websites had clearer segregation between:
- totally flexible (anytime) tickets
- fairly flexible (off peak) tickets
- totally inflexible (Advance) tickets
These are not difficult concepts for people to understand.
It would then be useful to have a clear statement of what "off peak" means, for that specific ticket.
Then people would undoubtedly know exactly what they are getting into, without having to read "small print" which seems to be beyond the wit of most Guardian complainers.
Skymonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 1,730
There is EVERY reason why that shouldn't be allowed - unless the ticket is replaced pre-departure as HHF suggests...
In an ideal world, if everyone played by the rules and everyone was honest, you could let the guy who missed his train on an advance onto the next one. But for everyone who makes an innocent mistake, there'll be another who uses the same excuse to deliberately avoid or circumvent the rules to try and save money. It's impossible to differentiate between the two in most cases, so everyone has to accept that the rules are rigidly applied.
How do you differentiate between the person who through some misfortune misses their train, and the person who books the mid-day train because it's cheaper than the next one or the one before, then travels on the more expensive preceeding or next train anyway using some lame and unproveable excuse as to why they're not on their booked train? If you allow people with advance tickets to get on any train they feel like, passengers will buy the cheapest ticket they can find and then invent some excuse to travel on a more expensive train. Result, the whole fares system will decend to the point where everyone is travelling on cheap tickets.
Passengers aren't being scammed... The terms and conditions for advance tickets are there for anyone to read. I bet the vast majority of passengers ARE aware of the rules and restrictions on advance tickets, and they're quite happy to accept the conditions in order to get a cheap ticket, and yet they're not happy when those conditions are enforced.
Again, if you just let people upgrade when they feel like it with no penalty / additional levy for doing so, many will buy a cheap tickets in the hope they'll make a particular train, and then suck up the upgrade on a few occasions when they luck out and don't make their booked train. There's GOT to be some disincentive / downside to buying cheap advance tickets otherwise the railway would lose much of it's revenue from more expensive tickets - the disincentive / downside is that there is no flexibility and fairly restrictive rules you have to comply with, whereas more expensive tickets are more flexible. It's really not that difficult a concept to understand - it's just the some folks want all the advantages of cheap fares AND all the advantages of pleasing themselves and getting flexibility if things change. It doesn't work like that - and if it did, it'd lose the industry too much money.
Andy
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On the other hand, I do have some sympathy with some of the other issues the Guardian raises... So for example:
* Forgotten/lost railcard - if the passenger has proof of name/address why not give them seven days to demonstrate that they have a railcard without having to pay extra on the day? If they prove it, they don't pay extra at all - if they can't or don't prove it they get a draconian "fine" (I'm thinking three figures) which is rigourously collected
* Forgotten reservation, or only got the reservation, on an advance - same thing, if they have proof of name/address give passengers seven days to produce the other bits. If they prove it, they don't pay extra - if they can't or don't produce it they get a draconian "fine" (again, I'm thinking three figures)
* Standardisation - yes, there's got to be a means by which passengers have the same sanctions applied irrespective of the TOC concerned. For example, sit in the wrong class on some TOCs and just get invited to pay the upgrade whilst on others its a penalty or worse - its got to be one way or the other across the whole network so passengers don't get caught out expecting behavior of one TOC is replicated by all. Same with buy-onboard - it should either be OK across the network or not OK across the whole network - it's too difficult for casual passengers to determine where its OK and they're not going to get caught out and where its not OK and they risk being penaltied or reported for prosecution.
Andy
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
But the system shouldn't be so complicated that you need to resort to reading reams of terms and conditions.
I've said it before and it still holds true. Any business where the first reaction is to say 'well you didn't read the T&C's' has lost the plot. Relying on the T&Cs to 'punish' the customer should be the last resort, not the first resort.
Skymonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 1,730
I absolutely disagree with that... I'm all for making the Ts&Cs simple to understand, AND they must be easily accessible, AND customers must be made aware of them... But there has to be Ts&Cs - they alternative is "anything goes". And the Ts&Cs have to be applied consistantly for the same reasons. The problem is that for every honest passenger who has a genuine excuse for deviating from the Ts&Cs, I'm pretty sure that there will be at least one other less honest passenger who uses the same excuse to cover up their own deliberate actions, oversights or to try to save money.
Andy
By all means make websites clearer and easier to use. Look at how many smartphone apps are designed to see how you can make things VERY simple and straightforward, without cutting out functionality.
TVMs are also another big problem. They should have a disclaimer printed on the screen before you can pay, explaining 'key facts' as you'd get with many financial services or insurance. You then confirm you agree (so there's NO doubt - even if you ignore them) and the ticket is marked as restrictions advised.
If at this point someone genuinely notices that 'oh, so I can't just use the ticket on any train to go anywhere I like' they can cancel and then go to the Guardian and moan - but at least they've been stopped before it's too late.
And if they chance it, well - tough!
If ATOC ever considered my idea of an optional surcharge to allow a no-penalty excess (except the excess is paid in advance and is non-refundable) then it would be another option. Going back to my first point, well designed software would make things a lot easier than they are now.
Even I'll admit that if I'm somewhere unfamiliar, it can be quite daunting to use a TVM and look through the pre-selected fares, and even harder to understand the differences between them. The restriction code explanation is also pretty poor, and must confuse the hell out of a lot of people simply because of its wording and often abbreviated terms.
The industry might be right, no IS right, but it doesn't do itself any favours at times. If they did things a bit more carefully, they'd stop people moaning - or at least stop them getting any sympathy.
TVMs are also another big problem. They should have a disclaimer printed on the screen before you can pay, explaining 'key facts' as you'd get with many financial services or insurance. You then confirm you agree (so there's NO doubt - even if you ignore them) and the ticket is marked as restrictions advised.
If at this point someone genuinely notices that 'oh, so I can't just use the ticket on any train to go anywhere I like' they can cancel and then go to the Guardian and moan - but at least they've been stopped before it's too late.
And if they chance it, well - tough!
If ATOC ever considered my idea of an optional surcharge to allow a no-penalty excess (except the excess is paid in advance and is non-refundable) then it would be another option. Going back to my first point, well designed software would make things a lot easier than they are now.
Even I'll admit that if I'm somewhere unfamiliar, it can be quite daunting to use a TVM and look through the pre-selected fares, and even harder to understand the differences between them. The restriction code explanation is also pretty poor, and must confuse the hell out of a lot of people simply because of its wording and often abbreviated terms.
The industry might be right, no IS right, but it doesn't do itself any favours at times. If they did things a bit more carefully, they'd stop people moaning - or at least stop them getting any sympathy.
SS4
Established Member
Fair enough
. You'd essentially have to cleave starting/stopping short from BoJ if you wanted to allow it though. I see no problem with it myself, especially when you consider the price is often the same to a number of stations in the area: LM Birmingham to London advances (iirc) are the same price from any station the NWM area.I concur, of course they'd not look twice about claiming off the TOC for not upholding their end of the bargain. Indeed, many on board staff overlook that you have to sit in your reserved seat.
You don't really need to read them and they're clearly shown on NRES under Ticket Types. How else is one able to uphold the rules without having well-defined T&Cs?
Code:
When can I use an Advance ticket?
Advance fares are valid only on the date and train shown on the ticket and are non-refundable. You can change the time or date of travel before departure of the first reserved train.
Any difference in fare and an administration fee will be payable.Here are the full T&Cs (not even a PDF): http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/advance_conditions.html
This argument will go on as long as there are restricted tickets. Should we do away will all ticket restrictions?
That is pretty clear if you already know the rules, but I could potentially see how someone might misinterpret the last point thinking it was separate to the paragraph above.
If they did, they might think they'd simply pay an admin fee and an excess to the price of a ticket on the other train. They could even assume this would be to another advance fare on that service.
I'd recommend a re-write of that to be honest. Yes, the passenger would be wrong to think that - but things like this only help to have them going off crying to the press, who might also misunderstand. Far better to nip it in the bud from the outset.
telstarbox
Established Member
I'm sure the vast majority of people who buy or use Advances know the "rules" and would much rather they remained available.
On this, please suggest either (a) who will pay for every single station in the country to be equipped with ticket-selling facilities sufficient in number and reliability to ensure that every passenger can purchase a ticket for every train, and pay for all TVMs in existence to have the software updates necessary to facilitate this, and pay the salary settlement that will undoubtedly be demanded by the unions because of the guards giving up their commission, or (b) who will pay compensation to TOCs in urban areas for the nose-dive to their revenues caused by ticketless travel by passengers who will pay only when challenged and won't risk being PFed or prosecuted?
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
I think you mis-read what I wrote. Where did I say we don't need T&Cs? I said when you instinctively resort to the T&Cs as a first resort for sorting out customer service issues, then you've lost the plot. The T&Cs are there as a last resort for dealing with the p***s takers.
You see this happening all the time in other customer service industries:
- If I rent a car, the T&Cs say I have to show my driving licence, If I forget it, will they refuse to rent the car to me? No, they'll ring DVLA to verify my driving status (and charge me a small admin fee for the privilege). But if I am not licensed to drive, then they'll tell me to take a hike.
- If I stay in a budget hotel and the check-out time is 11am, will they charge me extra if I check out at 11.15? But if I stay in the room til 5pm, then they'll charge me.
- If I buy something in a shop, a lot of places will give you 28 days in their T&Cs to exchange the goods, or get a refund if you change your mind. But around Christmas time, many of these relax the 28-day rule to deal with unwanted/duplicate presents.
Do you see the difference in 'providing good customer service' and sticking absolutely to the letter of 'the rules' in every case?
It's a change in mentality from 'we are here to enforce the rules' to 'we are here to serve the customer'.
Last edited:
Print@home could be a bit different if there's a record of the tickets held by the guard, for verification purposes. Assuming you could confirm your name (with ID) and sat in the correct seat, I can't see a problem. You're on the right train, for one - unlike someone with an advance ticket travelling earlier/later.
Of course, you might not know what seat you were supposed to have - but then you'd surely approach the guard first and establish that. If nobody else turned up with a ticket arguing that the seat was rightfully theirs, I can't see a problem here.
I'd also hope to be able to produce an e-ticket on my phone display to satisfy a guard, or even a text with a reference code. If I'd scribbled that on my finger with a biro, but could still prove I was who I said I was, that might suffice. In fact, as long as I said the name without being told - the guard might still believe me.
We're talking about different problems here.
Of course, you might not know what seat you were supposed to have - but then you'd surely approach the guard first and establish that. If nobody else turned up with a ticket arguing that the seat was rightfully theirs, I can't see a problem here.
I'd also hope to be able to produce an e-ticket on my phone display to satisfy a guard, or even a text with a reference code. If I'd scribbled that on my finger with a biro, but could still prove I was who I said I was, that might suffice. In fact, as long as I said the name without being told - the guard might still believe me.
We're talking about different problems here.
This is already done by some TOCs. However, connectivity is a major issue on many lines, so instant verification of tickets might not be viable.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
But it simply is not possible on a train to guarantee that the guard will see everyone. That would result in people trying it on - and lost revenue.
If more people had simple-to-scan tickets (or a smartcards) then guards would be able to get through quicker. Thus, people hoping to try it on would be reached quicker and more likely not to get away with it.
Banking on a guard not making it through on time will always happen. I'm sure guards can try and catch people out by starting checks in different carriages and at different ends. They're not stupid!
I know some ideas would require changes that, while seemingly simple and not even expensive, would take ages and cost a fortune to the railway - but the guard would only need to have a list of valid tickets (including name, code, seat, journey) downloaded before the train set off to have the means to verify things. Ultimately, terminals held by staff will one day be fully connected via mobile data (or even via onboard Wi-Fi).
Banking on a guard not making it through on time will always happen. I'm sure guards can try and catch people out by starting checks in different carriages and at different ends. They're not stupid!
I know some ideas would require changes that, while seemingly simple and not even expensive, would take ages and cost a fortune to the railway - but the guard would only need to have a list of valid tickets (including name, code, seat, journey) downloaded before the train set off to have the means to verify things. Ultimately, terminals held by staff will one day be fully connected via mobile data (or even via onboard Wi-Fi).
Kentish Paul
Member
I see the story has made it to the Daily Mail. Needless to say 90% of the comments posted are of the rip off railway/ jobsworth/ little Hitler variety.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
There is a world of difference between the two. I think you're unfairly attacking people on here who selflessly help others reduce the cost of their travels legally.
There is a thin line and it can be easily missed.
I think this has hit the nail on the head.
Last edited:
- Status