Guardian: "Penalised train passengers fight ticketing rules"

AlterEgo said:

Pumbaa said:

With all of your examples, the fault lies at some point with a member of staff not willing to (or, possibly, not being empowered to) use discretion or common sense.

I disagree that the system doesn't work. It isn't perfect and it can always be improved. Rules are rules, but there are times the rules should be bent. Some of your examples are unusual and I'm disappointed that common sense wasn't applied. In at least three of the cases it should have been blatantly obvious that the passengers were genuine.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Says it all about the state of our railways in the 21st century and unfortunatly the mentality of a proportion of those who work on them.:cry:

Pumbaa said:

....1) a passenger booked on an Advance ticket Paddington - Newport suffered an epileptic fit while travelling to get her train. On missing the booked train, tried to explain the situation. Paddington office told them point blank SOS. The passenger happened to be tweeting at the time, and after a lot of public flak they apologised and cancelled the charge.

Why should any passenger be penalised for something which is so evidently outside of their control? You could leave a day ahead to get to the station on time, and something similar to that could happen. Passengers should be able to upgrade/excess when that happens ; it is far more appropriate than being charged full whack.....

Click to expand...

Without the full details at hand it is difficult to say if the clerks were right or not. I don't wish to sound as though they were deliberately ignoring a medical condition, but merely that if there is a lack of evidence, it would be quite possible to believe there was an attempt to pull the wool over the clerks eyes.

I have seen people use illness as an excuse to avoid paying a fare or to avoid an admin charge, not on one occasion but many many occasions, and in some cases the very same person doing it.

And to turn your question around, why should the TOCs be penalised for something which is so evidently out of their control?

Pumbaa said:

....2) another passenger booked on an Advance Penzance - Paddington had their wallet stolen with railcard in it. Ticket office told them not valid, new fare please.

Again, surely an excess for something outside the passengers control is far more suitable than 'sorry about your stolen property, but now we're also going to ask you for another hundred quid or so because the thief didn't have the decency to leave behind your railcard'? ....

Click to expand...

If the passenger had a police crime report number I would have sold the new ticket and put the refund in on the discounted one with no admin fee, or issued a new railcard on the evidence of the police report (costing the passenger nothing). If the passenger had not reported it stolen, the rules are quite clear, if you cannot produce a valid railcard you must buy a new ticket.

Pumbaa said:

....3) a passenger travelling Aberdeen - York had had their case dropped out of a helicopter, and their items scattered across the helipad. One of the lost items included the reservation coupon of their ticket. Despite having the travel ticket, and a full itinerary, both ticket office and guard refused travel. After correspondence, NX eventually refunded the open fare charged.

Not an everyday example admittedly, but the point is relevant. Surely on evidence that the first £30 or whatever had been paid, an excess to the next available ticket would be far more appropriate than a full fare?....

Click to expand...

The terms and conditions say you must have both parts to travel. I am assuming that the helicopter, landing pad, case and the person carrying it did not belong to any Train Operating Company? So why should the TOC bear responsibility for the actions of another unrelated party?

Pumbaa said:

....4) a passenger travelling between Glasgow and Edinburgh for an interview had misplaced their relevant discount card, but on habit had applied it. The passenger had a series of tickets in their possession all stamped and endorsed and okayed, each with the discount applied. In an attempt to make themselves look appealing for their interview, had selected a new bag and not transferred their discount card over. An innocent mistake - and chinged full fare.

Surely an excess again would have been far more appropriate? The passenger was already in a state enough without being asked for an extra fare.....

Click to expand...

Imagine me sitting in a seat on a train, it doesn't matter what you imagine I look like, so let your imagination run wild. Imagine you are a ticket inspector checking everyone's tickets. Imagine when you approach me, I tell you that I have accidentally left my railcard at home in my other bag that I normally use and I thought I had it on me when I bought the ticket from the vending machine so didn't think twice about buying the discounted fare, I have lots of old tickets for you to see. Do you think I am telling the truth? or do you think my railcard ran out since the last tickets were used and I'm trying my luck? How can you be sure?

Pumbaa said:

....5) a passenger travelling Crianlarich to London missed the train from Crianlarich to Glasgow Qst and hence missed the connection onwards. They were stopped by an elderly couple on the outside of the town crying for help. After assisting the man in distress suitably and making sure the situation was okay, the train had been missed. The guard on the next train passed the passenger to Glasgow no problem, but was then promptly asked for a full fare from Glasgow to London by the Virgin staff. Despite having details of the ambulance journey, the time of the incident etc - nada.

Surely an excess again would be far more appropriate?....

Click to expand...

How does the guard know the passenger is telling the truth? Maybe it did happen, maybe it was ten days before, and maybe he is using the story to get away with waking up late that morning? How can you be sure it is true or not?

GarethW said:

Says it all about the state of our railways in the 21st century and unfortunatly the mentality of a proportion of those who work on them.:cry:

Click to expand...

Possibly - but in my view it is a management issue at some TOCs rather than "vindictiveness" or bloody mindedness on the part of individual clerks.

Some staff just aren't empowered to bend the rules, and it's sad.

Ask ATOC about discretion - the Manual in several places (Advance Fares FAQs for one) strongly advises the use of common sense and discretion.

The situations described in this thread probably make some people at ATOC weep. The system is not designed to penalise the genuine.

The Barlow Boy said:

Right, first of all can you please drop the American "fail". The word is failure. Now, to business. The excessing of the incorrect ticket up to the price of the proper ticket is the correct thing to do. In B.R. days there were four main discounted fares. Day Returns, Off Peak Returns, Weekend Returns, Monthly Returns. Each was subject to restrictions. If a passenger was found to be using a restricted train they were excessed up to the correct fare. This excess fare being the difference between what they'd paid and what they should have paid. It was simple and effective for both parties. On the staff side it was easy to deal with, on the passenger side it offered flexibility in that if for whatever reason a person should, after purchasing the ticket decide to travel on a restricted train they knew that they would be paying the difference and not being penalised by being made to buy a new ticket. This didn't ever stop people buying discounted fares, most every train on a Friday afternoon out of Paddington was rammed with Weekend and Monthly return ticket holders. An example of excessing a fare up was a Weekend Return (return portion valid until Monday) holder deciding to stay for a day or two longer for whatever reason. The ticket would be excesed up to a Monthly Return, no problem. Failure to produce a railcard supported ticket was different in that a new ticket would have to be purchased due to the conditions of issue. Simple job, no card, no ticket. In either case there was no loss of revenue, the passenger would be paying what they should have paid rather than being ripped off in the name of restrictions and pettyfogging by a greedy TOC which due to this exposes itself to charges of the same and it's staff to be abused by passengers who feel with some justification that they're being taken for the wrong sort of ride.

Click to expand...

If we had the old fare structure, then everything you say would make perfect sense.

But we don't.

We have FAR cheaper Advance tickets (relative to fully priced flexible tickets), and in exchange for the SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper fares, there are simple-to-understand conditions.

We could go back to the world you are describing, but that would result in far less access to cheap travel than we have right now, and loss of the benefit of rail travel for many individuals.

A far greater number of passengers benefit from relatively cheap Advances than the tiny proportion who feel hard done by as a result of missing their booked train and being charged for a full priced ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pumbaa said:

Having a massive fine/charge is most definitely not palatable to anyone. If systems are fairly watertight and applied fairly and equally (ie barcoded unique discount cards) then surely the railways should put the potential evasion lower in the priorities than satisfying the majority of its customers instead. Part of that satisfaction comes from not treating them with impunity when it comes to pretty garish T+Cs.

Click to expand...

The vast, vast majority of passengers are well served by Advance tickets and are quite capable of complying with their conditions.

johnnychips said:

Selflessly!

Click to expand...

Oops. Now corrected.

neilmc said:

If, on this forum, you advise someone travelling from Manchester to Birmingham in the late morning peak to save money by split-ticketing at, say, Stafford then you doubly deprive Cross Country of revenue as not only are they paying cheaper off-peak fares for part of the journey but also (I assume) Northern Rail and London Midland will get a portion of the revenue even though they're not using their trains. Plenty of revenue distortion there.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. However if CrossCountry priced some of their fares more reasonably then occurrences of such pricing anomalies would be greatly reduced.

neilmc said:

I presume "selfishly" should read "selflessly" and, yes, it's good and I applaud it, but I bet you any money Cross Country for one aren't too happy with this forum as they'll be losers most if not all of the time. But I'm sure you don't care as they need a good kicking for trying to charge full standard fares on morning provincial journeys, and failing to provide decent discounts on advances and they're regularly getting one here.

Click to expand...

You are of course correct on this count. I am not here to please CrossCountry, or any other TOC, for the reason stated above.

neilmc said:

But I also believe all TOCs need a good kicking for making people pay full standard fares IN ADDITION TO what they've lost by failing to make the exact journey specified on the advance ticket, for whatever reason, or having forgotten a railcard. And I'm pretty sure that the general public agree - on the Guardian website, words like "scam", "robber" and "gangster" crop up pretty regularly. And I didn't write any of them.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of sensationalism in those articles, without fully understanding the system. There is a huge number of things I think can be improved in terms of the fares system, however whatever the proposed system is, for it to work, it requires passengers, as well as the TOCs, to take a certain degree of responsibility, and play by the rules.

When it comes to articles like this, I often think that the old 90%-10% formula applies.

A small percentage of passengers would not be happy if they had paid £5 for a first class ticket from London to Cardiff, and had free champagne en-route. They would find something to moan about.

I cannot believe the effort the industry as a whole spends in pandering to these people, who will never be satisfied anyway.

hairyhandedfool said:

So "Valid on booked train only", "Valid only with reservation coupon", "non-refundable" and "admin fee for changes to travel plans before booked departure" are contradictory, difficult to understand and complex?

Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but the deadwood surrounding them is. And we are talking about the exceptional circumstances, and how the industry deals with them. That is where the problems occur

hairyhandedfool said:

Those terms may be "heavily weighted in favour of the TOCs", but Advance ticket prices are discounted (quite heavily in some cases), and if the conditions have evolved over 150 years (actually I doubt that figure) then people have had plenty of time to adjust to them.

Click to expand...

The Ts&Cs have evolved over that time, but they have not evolved quickly enough to be entirely relevant or fair for the new concept of ultra-cheap advances.

hairyhandedfool said:

To say they have evolved and then to say they have not been brought up to date is a bit contradictory too (or atleast can be taken to be contradictory).

Click to expand...

They have "evolved" by having new lumps bolted on to existing sections; to be brought up to date requires that the overall effect of each new lump needs assessing and perhaps incorporating into newly drafted documents. As I am sure you know.

hairyhandedfool said:

The terms are given to the passenger at the time of purchase, as governed by the NRCoC, when you buy at a station (they should also be given when buying online, even if only by a link with a tick box to confirm they have been read).

Click to expand...

Very funny - I cannot remember when I was last offered sight of the NRCoC when I bought a ticket. Perhaps there should be a tick box to say that the salesman has read them out to the customer. That would encourage travel!

hairyhandedfool said:

To say they are not available is an excuse for not following them (and it doesn't wash frankly), you can find them out at any stage before, during or after travel by simply asking ticket office or on train staff about them (you can even phone NRES or the TOCs themselves or visit the NRES website), it really isn't that hard.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, to those who have a rough idea of what they are looking for. But, to anyone else - i would hazard a guess at 99% of travellers - that is not the case. And, when you do find them, they are unclear, complex, and gargantuan. Not the best documents. It is rather like asking a patient to read the Health and Social care Act before booking an appointment with a GP.

Sadly, the thread has become, like so many before it, polarised between those who say the industry should be customer-focused, attractive and profitable, and those who say that procedures should be based on the idea that everyone is out to rip the railways off, and that the current structure of laws and regulations proves it does not need to change.

bb21 said:

There is a huge number of things I think can be improved in terms of the fares system, however whatever the proposed system is, for it to work, it requires passengers, as well as the TOCs, to take a certain degree of responsibility, and play by the rules.

Click to expand...

But passengers won't do this. Despite that people wouldn't try it on a plane or coach, it is ingrained into the psyche of at least some British residents that "the railway" should be "flexible", offer "better customer service" to people who can't be bothered to abide by the restrictions on their tickets or the simple obligation to carry a railcard, and still have £6 tickets from London to Birmingham/£14 from London to Glasgow/etc.

None of the current situation is helped by TOCs instructing their TMs to be conflict-avoidant and not to enforce ticket conditions if it would delay the service, nor by TOCs issuing refunds to people who have been properly charged up, whether as a "gesture of goodwill" or not.

Cheap fares and reduced/no restrictions are mutually exclusive, and as soon as the Guardian, the Daily Fail, and the public in general realise that, the better off we will be.

island said:

....Cheap fares and reduced/no restrictions are mutually exclusive, and as soon as the Guardian, the Daily Fail, and the public in general realise that, the better off we will be.

Click to expand...

But they aren't. They are only made so by the current system. For instance, a 90% discount for buying any ticket 6 months or more in advance of travel would be very simple. There may be other implications within the business plan of the TOC, such as managing numbers on specific trains, or profit, but those are introduced by the TOC, and, as such, are optional. I am not suggesting such a scheme (OK, why not?), just pointing out that a simple basis is possible

Oswyntail said:

Perhaps not, but the deadwood surrounding them is. And we are talking about the exceptional circumstances, and how the industry deals with them. That is where the problems occur....

Click to expand...

People in this thread may be picking out obscure or exceptional case to try to prove a point, but the thread was started by an article which does not make such distinction. All rules have to account for everyone, not one of the people who happens to be travelling without a valid ticket (genuine or not).

Oswyntail said:

....The Ts&Cs have evolved over that time, but they have not evolved quickly enough to be entirely relevant or fair for the new concept of ultra-cheap advances....

Click to expand...

The conditions for Advance tickets were devised when the Virgin Value tickets were created (by Virgin Trains as it happens) sometime around 1999-2001. They were adopted as a standard set of restrictions during simplification.

Oswyntail said:

....They have "evolved" by having new lumps bolted on to existing sections; to be brought up to date requires that the overall effect of each new lump needs assessing and perhaps incorporating into newly drafted documents. As I am sure you know....

Click to expand...

So your suggestion would be to redraft the NRCoC every time the fares conditions change or need updating? Doesn't sound economical or simple for the passenger.

Oswyntail said:

....Very funny - I cannot remember when I was last offered sight of the NRCoC when I bought a ticket. Perhaps there should be a tick box to say that the salesman has read them out to the customer. That would encourage travel!....

Click to expand...

When was the last time you asked for a copy? (a copy must be available upon request). It is the restrictions to the ticket that must be given to the passenger, not the NRCoC.

Oswyntail said:

....Perhaps, to those who have a rough idea of what they are looking for. But, to anyone else - i would hazard a guess at 99% of travellers - that is not the case. And, when you do find them, they are unclear, complex, and gargantuan. Not the best documents. It is rather like asking a patient to read the Health and Social care Act before booking an appointment with a GP....

Click to expand...

If you go into a shop to buy something, but can't find it, do you walk out assuming they don't have it? do you just buy something similar and hope for the best? or do you ask the shop staff?

Once again I have to say that the conditions (especially in relation to Joe Public) are simple, relatively small and quite clear.

The Health and social care act is hardly the same as the NRCoC, nevermind the four or five terms of the Advance fare.

Oswyntail said:

....Sadly, the thread has become, like so many before it, polarised between those who say the industry should be customer-focused, attractive and profitable,...

Click to expand...

And gives in to anyone who dares to put up a fight (which would be any fare evaders with an ounce of sense). Incidentally, given the options mentioned in this thread, I hardly think customer focused and profitable could be used in the same sentence.

Oswyntail said:

.... and those who say that procedures should be based on the idea that everyone is out to rip the railways off, and that the current structure of laws and regulations proves it does not need to change.

Click to expand...

No, the other side is that there are people who will do ANYTHING to avoid paying a fare to the extent that they will attempt to look like "genuine customers" to try to fool staff (the other side fails to acknowledge this or account for it).

The rules must apply equally to all people, that either means letting the fare evaders go, or charging "genuine customers" for not obeying the terms of the ticket that they agreed to. The article in The Guardian is not about people who had a medical condition or were hampered by a rogue helicopter, but by people who failed to comply with the basic conditions of the advance fare, conditions which are not that different from those of the Apex and Super Advance fares of the early 2000s.

Imagine me sitting in a seat on a train, it doesn't matter what you imagine I look like, so let your imagination run wild. Imagine you are a ticket inspector checking everyone's tickets. Imagine when you approach me, I tell you that I have accidentally left my reservation coupon at home but I have actual ticket. I have lots of old tickets for you to see which I insist clearly proves I pay my fare regularly.

Do you think I am telling the truth? Do you think I shared my ticket with someone else in an attempt to reduce the cost of travel and I'm trying my luck? Or do you think I have picked up a few discarded tickets to use as my own? How can you be sure what I'm doing? Do you apply the conditions of the ticket? Or let me off with a warning?

hairyhandedfool said:

The TOCs need a good kicking because the passenger can't keep to a set of terms and conditions? Really?

Click to expand...

A VERY similar arguement to those the banks advanced over credit card and current account charges.....remind me again how that one ended. The reality is that if it wasn't for the 19th century legislation much of railway fare enforcement still relies on there would have been radical change long ago.

TOCs can't have it both ways, being a private company when it suits (ie we are NOT providing a public service) and ignoring public disquiet over what is pereceived as unfair treatment, and then the very same TOC queuing up with the begging bowl for subsidies funded by the very same public.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think I should have made my baseline position very clear.

I have lots of sympathy for those who get caught out by an overly complicated (deliberately so?) system or who feel compelled to buy a ridiculously over-priced Anytime ticket as they are not sure of the restrictions on "cheaper" tickets.

I have zero sympathy on those who deliberately fare-dodge or fiddle and think they should be come down on like a ton of bricks.

I do appreciate that the problem is distinguishing between the two.

^^^^^^^^^^
What he said! IMHO, the current set up tries to avoid distinguishing by assuming the worst of everyone - which will result in mass public disillusionment and teh sort of articles the OP posted.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find an article on a major news site that praises the railway

Wolfie said:

A VERY similar arguement to those the banks advanced over credit card and current account charges.....remind me again how that one ended. The reality is that if it wasn't for the 19th century legislation much of railway fare enforcement still relies on there would have been radical change long ago....

Click to expand...

I don't know the ins and outs of the bank charges issue, but I do know that my bank still charges me the same amount for going overdrawn as they did when the whole issue was going on (infact it is higher than before it all kicked off by 150%). It now also charges me when I apply for an overdraft limit change (regardless of it being successful or not) and for each year the overdraft limit is in place.

Tickets have conditions, if I break them I expect some penalty to apply, a pre-determined penalty noted in the contract, and that is what I would get. I accept that is the case and I move on with my life.

Wolfie said:

....TOCs can't have it both ways, being a private company when it suits (ie we are NOT providing a public service) and ignoring public disquiet over what is pereceived as unfair treatment, and then the very same TOC queuing up with the begging bowl for subsidies funded by the very same public.....

Click to expand...

People (staff and passenger alike) think anything that goes against them is, in some way, unfair, even if they are perfectly happy with it beforehand or when it goes their way.

If a passenger adheres to the conditions, what happens? Nothing much, they have their journey, with no ticketing issues, at a fraction of the cost of an Anytime fare.

If a passenger misses the train, or is early enough to catch the previous train, and goes to the booking office to sort out the ticket, what happens? They are either upgraded to the cheapest walk up fare (if early) or sold the cheapest walk up fare (if late) in line with the conditions of the ticket. They might not be entirely happy, but they accept they had not obeyed the conditions of the ticket.

If a passenger is late, or early enough to catch the previous train, and simply boards the train (that they are not booked on), they have to pay the full Anytime fare. They will moan and complain that everything is unfair, but those are the conditions of the ticket.

The passenger has ultimate control of what extra charge is made, it is not hard to understand.

Wolfie said:

....I think I should have made my baseline position very clear.

I have lots of sympathy for those who get caught out by an overly complicated (deliberately so?) system or who feel compelled to buy a ridiculously over-priced Anytime ticket as they are not sure of the restrictions on "cheaper" tickets....

Click to expand...

How are they overly complicated? No-one has yet said (they have only commented on the fact that they think they are complicated as far as I can remember).

Perhaps you could define (specifically) what you mean by "those who are caught out"?

Could you explain why it is so hard for Joe Public to ask what the conditions of the ticket are if they are unsure of them?

Wolfie said:

....I have zero sympathy on those who deliberately fare-dodge or fiddle and think they should be come down on like a ton of bricks.

I do appreciate that the problem is distinguishing between the two.

Click to expand...

If you can't distinguish between the two how can you expect staff to "catch" the fare evaders and let the "genuine passengers" go with 100% accuracy? The rules have to be the same for everyone or the system doesn't work.

hairyhandedfool said:

How are they overly complicated? No-one has yet said (they have only commented on the fact that they think they are complicated as far as I can remember).

Click to expand...

Precisely - they are not complicated when referring to Advance tickets. Valid on the booked train only. There really is no simpler ticket.

People are looking to obfuscate matters by referring to complex ticketing, which really applies when we are talking about obscure combinations of tickets, or Off Peak tickets, both of which I accept can be confusing to a layman.

I just do not accept the notion that Advance ticket conditions are confusing.

AlterEgo said:

Precisely - they are not complicated when referring to Advance tickets. Valid on the booked train only. There really is no simpler ticket.

People are looking to obfuscate matters by referring to complex ticketing, which really applies when we are talking about obscure combinations of tickets, or Off Peak tickets, both of which I accept can be confusing to a layman.

I just do not accept the notion that Advance ticket conditions are confusing.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I was using a Super Off Peak ticket before and had to check the restrictions far more than I would have done with an advance.

Oswyntail said:

But they aren't. They are only made so by the current system. For instance, a 90% discount for buying any ticket 6 months or more in advance of travel would be very simple. There may be other implications within the business plan of the TOC, such as managing numbers on specific trains, or profit, but those are introduced by the TOC, and, as such, are optional. I am not suggesting such a scheme (OK, why not?), just pointing out that a simple basis is possible

Click to expand...

I'll grant you they are possible in theory. But no more, because the TOCs simply won't accept the erosion to their profit margins or will require the Government to make it up. There's no point in going on with pie-in-the-sky theories like that.

Wolfie said:

A VERY similar arguement to those the banks advanced over credit card and current account charges.....remind me again how that one ended.

Click to expand...

OK, I'll remind you. The banks won. In The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc & Others [2009] UKSC 6, the Supreme Court found in their favour.

Can someone please give me a straight answer to the following questions:

• What is difficult, unclear, or unfair about the statements "VALID ONLY WITH RESERVATIONS" and "BOOKDTRAINONLY" that appear on the face of all Advance tickets?
• What is difficult, unclear, or unfair about the statement "TO BE CARRIED ON ALL RAIL JOURNEYS" that appears on the front of all Railcards?

No special pleadings please.

SS4 said:

Agreed, I was using a Super Off Peak ticket before and had to check the restrictions far more than I would have done with an advance.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Before I worked on the railway I basically did all of my travelling off-peak. (I no longer buy Off Peak tickets as I have a Priv and therefore purchase Anytimes)

I was often confused and I'm sure at least once I unintentionally left Euston during the peak when my ticket didn't allow it.

There is a very worthy argument that Off Peak tickets are now more complex than ever, what with odd "peak" times, break of journey restrictions and excess fare rules coming into play. This is a priority for the industry to sort out in my view - I'd be incredibly disappointed to see a shift towards sorting out Advance tickets.

The whole country is going to the dogs. I want out.

You can't use Asda gift vouchers in Next. easyJet won't let me travel with a FlyBe ticket and a man at the border control wouldn't let me through without a passport even though I had proof (driving licence and bank statement) that I lived in this country - total jobsworths.

I have an account with Natwest, yet the staff at Lloyds TSb refused to give me £300.

My local gym does a "daytime" deal whereby I get a season ticket at 30% off if I go between 2pm & 4pm but yesterday I went at 10am and they wanted to charge me again - how stupid ! After all it's the same equipment I'll be using.

Last week I went to the post office to collect a Special Delivery Parcel. They wouldn't let me have it as I hadn't got proof of ID. I mean, come on! It said that on the card but you would have thought they would have put it in extra large neon print and also given me a telephone call just to make sure.

To top it all I got charged an extra £30 interest on my credit card bill. I know I had to have it paid by 10th May but I was 3 days late. They only gave me three weeks notice that I had to pay. You would have thought that they would have used some discretion !

Now I read this forum and find that the railways are charging people extra! Come on guys £100 on any train or £35 if you catch a specific train. I think you should be able to save £65 and get all the perks of a £100 ticket

So, I leaving the country. All I need to do now is find a bargain bucket £5 fare and an airline that will let me upgrade to First Class free of charge and use the Executive lounge at no extra cost

hairyhandedfool said:

I don't know the ins and outs of the bank charges issue, but I do know that my bank still charges me the same amount for going overdrawn as they did when the whole issue was going on (infact it is higher than before it all kicked off by 150%). It now also charges me when I apply for an overdraft limit change (regardless of it being successful or not) and for each year the overdraft limit is in place.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the comparison with bank charges. If any, it just goes to prove that there is no free lunch.

Seems that I am not the only one to have noticed the tightening of many terms and increases in many charges, not to mention a new list of things that we are now charged for which were previously free.

158801 said:

You can't use Asda gift vouchers in Next.

Click to expand...

To be fair, you can use many Sainsbury's money-off vouchers in Tesco. There are also other examples. Maybe Next should work with Asda more closely.

158801 said:

The whole country is going to the dogs. I want out.

You can't use Asda gift vouchers in Next. easyJet won't let me travel with a FlyBe ticket and a man at the border control wouldn't let me through without a passport even though I had proof (driving licence and bank statement) that I lived in this country - total jobsworths.

I have an account with Natwest, yet the staff at Lloyds TSb refused to give me £300.

My local gym does a "daytime" deal whereby I get a season ticket at 30% off if I go between 2pm & 4pm but yesterday I went at 10am and they wanted to charge me again - how stupid ! After all it's the same equipment I'll be using.

Last week I went to the post office to collect a Special Delivery Parcel. They wouldn't let me have it as I hadn't got proof of ID. I mean, come on! It said that on the card but you would have thought they would have put it in extra large neon print and also given me a telephone call just to make sure.

To top it all I got charged an extra £30 interest on my credit card bill. I know I had to have it paid by 10th May but I was 3 days late. They only gave me three weeks notice that I had to pay. You would have thought that they would have used some discretion !

Now I read this forum and find that the railways are charging people extra! Come on guys £100 on any train or £35 if you catch a specific train. I think you should be able to save £65 and get all the perks of a £100 ticket

So, I leaving the country. All I need to do now is find a bargain bucket £5 fare and an airline that will let me upgrade to First Class free of charge and use the Executive lounge at no extra cost

Click to expand...

That is a very amusing but absolutely spot on post. Nothing more needs to be said really. Lock the thread?!

This tread has been referred to in the comments at the end of the news article, so here's a quote from one of the comments. I can't help thinking the writing's on the wall (and I don't mean Banksy or Tox).

When is someone going to do something to stop the transparent profiteering of these monopolistic, inefficient, subsidy junky rail franchises?

Click to expand...

I've never been a fan of privatisation. Even less so now since I read the RAIB report about the Dock Jn / Kentish Town incident. My view is that there are certain things vital to the existence of a nation which do not need to be subject to a profit motive. When the chips are down, ie like now while many of the world's economies are in recession, having private enterprise involved in matters of national importance just means another pocket that needs to be lined. Which means it's no surprise that train companies are chasing every last penny they can.

By the way, the country went to the dogs a long time ago.

bb21 said:

I don't understand the comparison with bank charges....

Click to expand...

I don't either, but then I didn't bring it up.

BestWestern said:

That is a very amusing but absolutely spot on post.

Click to expand...

Really? It seemed to be a somewhat bizarre list of absurd 'comparisons'. A list designed to try and trivialise the counter-argument - and to ridicule those who might hold a different view.

transmanche said:

Really? It seemed to be a somewhat bizarre list of absurd 'comparisons'. A list designed to try and trivialise the counter-argument - and to ridicule those who might hold a different view.

Click to expand...

And it did it rather well I think. Sometimes mocking humour is all that's needed to expose a preposterous and flawed argument, and that post did it perfectly. I too think there's little more that can be added and that it's time to close the thread

transmanche said:

Really? It seemed to be a somewhat bizarre list of absurd 'comparisons'. A list designed to try and trivialise the counter-argument - and to ridicule those who might hold a different view.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it's a Straw Man and an Appeal to Popularity. Arguing that the rail service should do it "because Airlines do" isn't good enough. Nor is the inaccurate comparison that you can't use Next vouchers at Asda. Nobody's trying to use a FlyBe ticket on a train here...

The long and the short of this is that there's no "right" answer and different people have differing opinions. And I stand by mine, that the current terms for AP fares aren't appropriate.

island said:

I'll grant you they are possible in theory. But no more, because the TOCs simply won't accept the erosion to their profit margins or will require the Government to make it up. There's no point in going on with pie-in-the-sky theories like that.....

Click to expand...

You know that profit margins will be eroded? You know that there is no balance possible between the reduction in direct income and an increase in ridership? You know that the rail industry is different from many others where this sort of offer is available? When anyone says "there is no point going on...", that usually confirms that there is.
I believe the rail industry, almost top to bottom, is innately conservative, and only very rarely takes any line other than "this is the way it's done, and always has been". This is reinforced by the franchising system, where risk is firmly passed to the most risk-averse element, the DfT. Complete change is needed in many areas, but because of the conservative mindset it never will. Perhaps there's no point in going on!

AndyLandy said:

the current terms for AP fares aren't appropriate.

Click to expand...

Then - don't buy them.

No such thing as "appropriate" and "inappropriate" terms. People have varying opinions on Advance fares. I personally think the cheaper ones represent excellent value.

I can go from Birmingham to London for £6 with London Midland. For £6 I would be more than happy to accept the very restrictive terms of Advance tickets. Namely, I must arrive in time for my train and if I miss it I must buy a new ticket. If I wasn't rail staff, I would buy that Advance ticket; I agree to the terms.

I can go from Swansea to London for £102.50 (a more expensive tier of advance fares) with FGW. The same conditions apply as the £6 ticket, but I must look at the conditions and make a decision as to whether or not I buy that ticket. I note that the Anytime Single is £121.00, and I would prefer to buy the Anytime because the terms (valid on any train, allowing me the risk of sleeping in!), I feel, better fit the price of the ticket in my opinion. I would not buy the Advance ticket in this scenario; I do not agree to the terms.

If you do not agree to the very basic and very easy-to-understand terms of an Advance ticket then do not buy them.

Ferret said:

And it did it rather well I think. Sometimes mocking humour is all that's needed to expose a preposterous and flawed argument, and that post did it perfectly.

Click to expand...

Really? Just because someone holds an opinion different to your own, you think it's acceptable to mock them? Do you think that's conducive to a reasoned debate? All that happens is that opinions become polarised and it ends up as a "you smell of poo" infant school playground type argument.

Whereas a more reasoned exchange of views may actually ome up with new ideas.

I know which I prefer.

island said:

OK, I'll remind you. The banks won. In The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc & Others [2009] UKSC 6, the Supreme Court found in their favour.

Can someone please give me a straight answer to the following questions:

• What is difficult, unclear, or unfair about the statements "VALID ONLY WITH RESERVATIONS" and "BOOKDTRAINONLY" that appear on the face of all Advance tickets?
• What is difficult, unclear, or unfair about the statement "TO BE CARRIED ON ALL RAIL JOURNEYS" that appears on the front of all Railcards?

Click to expand...

Firstly I have not the slightest problem with Advanced tickets and the restrictions there on - I don't believe I ever argued otherwise BUT I do have a slight issue with the ticket becoming worthless in some cases rather than upgradable.

With respect to the banks, the Supreme Court ruled on a VERY narrow issue with respect to current account charges. Yes the banks won that one but it doesn;t stop literally dozens of websites advising on how to get money back from the banks and they certainly did not overturn the OFT on credit card charges. If you want the railways to go that way be my guest - suffice to say that the TOCs will need VERY large budgets for legal advice.