"Exploiting a loophole": what does this mean, and what are the implications

yorkie · 3 Oct 2018

Firstly, what does "exploitng a loophole" mean to you?

Does it mean using any ticket, or combination of tickets, to make a journey cheaper, even if you are using each ticket exactly as intended?

If so, is using a combination of York to Sheffield plus Sheffield to Derby fares really "exploiting a loophole" if you wish to travel from York to Derby?

Or does it mean using any specific ticket in a way that valid but is not intended to be valid?

Slaithwaite to Bradford is obviously intended to be valid via Huddersfield, so would not be a loophole under this definition. However the use of a ticket from Warwick to Hatton via Bristol, Portsmouth and Reading (which was an example I used to provide at fares workshops and was permitted until about a year ago) would be.

Or something else?

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 3 Oct 2018

It's an interesting question. I'd say that anything that causes you to get a lower fare than the intended through fare for the journey (or an applicable Rover/Ranger) is a loophole, but such loopholes are of course all perfectly legal.

There are extreme examples such as the Stechford one, though; there is no legal or moral reason why someone should be allowed to travel past, and stopping at, Stechford, just to ride to New St and back.

roversfan2001 · 3 Oct 2018

To me it means such tickets as the Warwick-Hatton (among others

), though that's only because I use split-tickets for pretty much every journey I do; whereas my friends who only occasionally travel by train would call split-ticketing a loophole.

Loop & Link · 3 Oct 2018

[Deleted]

Silverdale · 3 Oct 2018

In a post I made on another thread, "exploiting" has two dictionary meanings.

It can mean; gaining full benefit from, or

it can mean; making use of in an underhand or unfair way.

My view is that if a customer travels using a ticket in a way which is valid but was not intended to be valid, he is gaining full benefit from the validity offered. He is doing nothing which is underhand or unfair.

It is not a question the potential customer had/has to consider, but if Warwick to Hatton via Portsmouth, etc was not intended to be valid, why was it?

yorkie · 3 Oct 2018

Bletchleyite said:
It's an interesting question. I'd say that anything that causes you to get a lower fare than the intended through fare for the journey (or an applicable Rover/Ranger) is a loophole, but such loopholes are of course all perfectly legal.

What if there is no through fare for a journey, e.g. if someone uses a particularly good value fare for South Milford to Bridlington, which is not intended to be valid that way, are they then not using a loophole?

yorkie · 3 Oct 2018

Silverdale said:
...if Warwick to Hatton via Portsmouth, etc was not intended to be valid, why was it?

Because mistakes happen.

Kite159 · 3 Oct 2018

Exploiting a loophole - When you get questioned about it by a member of revenue protection and you are forced to bring up the relevant routing guide maps to show why that particular ticket is somehow valid at that particular station/route in order to avoid paying an additional fare.

gordonthemoron · 3 Oct 2018

both loopholes I have used in the past are no more:

Euston-Milton Keynes Off Peak return used to be allowed to return in the morning peak
Northampton-Knutsford Off Peak return used to be valid in the morning peak

Silverdale · 3 Oct 2018

yorkie said:
Because mistakes happen.

Quite.

So when a customer makes a mistake, by travelling off-route, or outside the time validity of their off-peak ticket and they are required to pay for an excess or a penalty, do we say the train company is "exploiting a loophole" or simply following the rules?

Silverdale · 3 Oct 2018

yorkie said:
What if there is no through fare for a journey, e.g. if someone uses a particularly good value fare for South Milford to Bridlington, which is not intended to be valid that way, are they then not using a loophole?

If I actually cared whether I would be branded as an expoliter of loopholes for buying such a ticket, how can I determine what was intended? Do the train companies publish a list of the fares they didn't intended to offer, but by mistake or ommision, did?

Dai Corner · 3 Oct 2018

In the other thread I suggested that a 'normal' passenger who accidentally came across a pricing anomaly (or 'loophole' if you prefer) was on higher moral ground than one with extensive knowledge of the rules who went looking for them.

Bletchleyite · 3 Oct 2018

yorkie said:
What if there is no through fare for a journey, e.g. if someone uses a particularly good value fare for South Milford to Bridlington, which is not intended to be valid that way, are they then not using a loophole?

That's probably a loophole, but a simple split with the train stopping at the split station isn't really, as it could validly be two journeys.

Silverdale · 3 Oct 2018

Bletchleyite said:
That's probably a loophole, but a simple split with the train stopping at the split station isn't really, as it could validly be two journeys.

Loophole, schmoophole, why does it matter what a particular valid use of one or more tickets is called?

Clip · 3 Oct 2018

Silverdale said:
Quite.

So when a customer makes a mistake, by travelling off-route, or outside the time validity of their off-peak ticket and they are required to pay for an excess or a penalty, do we say the train company is "exploiting a loophole" or simply following the rules?

They are just following the rules.

These 'loopholes' or 'anomaly' only come about due to the nature of our rail ticketing system which has millions of combinations and some that shouldn't be valid are can be due to them being missed when having to formulate fares to get from A to B so this is in the customers favour

Starmill · 3 Oct 2018

Bletchleyite said:
but such loopholes are of course all perfectly legal.

A loophole is by definition legal. If it's not "lawful", then it's not a loophole!

Those who pronounce on what was or was not "intended" to be valid are, in my view, almost always wrong. There is no way for you to know what was intended in the mind of the person who set the product, even if you think you have got good evidence you are still not necessarily correct.

Fawkes Cat · 3 Oct 2018

Ultimately, isn't this a moral issue rather than a legal one? Upthread, Silverdale said:

Silverdale said:
In a post I made on another thread, "exploiting" has two dictionary meanings.

It can mean; gaining full benefit from, or

it can mean; making use of in an underhand or unfair way.

I know the descriptions I'm about to use are loaded, but let's call Silverdale's first definition 'getting full value', and his second 'ripping off'.

Most people would probably agree with the statement "it's OK to get full value from a fare, but it's not OK to rip the railway off". The difficulty is where you draw the line between getting full value and ripping off. For me, I happily split tickets and use day rangers when they will get me a better fare - that's getting full value in my mind. But in the previous discussion about St Pancras to Stratford International via Ramsgate, my personal view was that using the £6.80 ticket for a day out at the seaside overstepped the mark: it's hard to think that the railway really intended anyone to save half their fare to Ramsgate by asking for a fairly unlikely ticket.

So if it's a moral issue rather than a legal one, we're unlikely to ever come to a definite answer.

sheff1 · 3 Oct 2018

Dai Corner said:
In the other thread I suggested that a 'normal' passenger who accidentally came across a pricing anomaly (or 'loophole' if you prefer) was on higher moral ground than one with extensive knowledge of the rules who went looking for them.

I travel by train to get from where I am to where I want to be - that seems perfectly normal to me. But I would be foolish not to use my knowledge to look for tickets which could save me significant sums when compared to the point to point fare and see nothing immoral in doing so.

Dai Corner · 3 Oct 2018

sheff1 said:
I travel by train to get from where I am to where I want to be - that seems perfectly normal to me. But I would be foolish not to use my knowledge to look for tickets which could save me significant sums when compared to the point to point fare and see nothing immoral in doing so.

Even to the extent of the example which started the original thread; paying for a St Pancras - Stratford single and going for a three hour tour of Kent? I'll admit that falls outside your 'from where I am to where I want to be' though.

I think there's a moral difference in paying what you know is a ridiculously cheap price and paying the minimum you need to. Rather like extreme tax avoidance.

sheff1 · 3 Oct 2018

Dai Corner said:
Even to the extent of the example which started the original thread; paying for a St Pancras - Stratford single and going for a three hour tour of Kent? I'll admit that falls outside your 'from where I am to where I want to be' though.

As you have correctly surmised, if I wanted to travel from St Pancras to Stratford I most certainly would not be in the slightest bit interested in going via Kent.

If, on the other hand, I wanted to go to Dover I would investigate whether there were cheaper valid options than the point to point fare. Nothing on the other thread has convinced me that a STP - SFA single would be such an option.

Skymonster · 3 Oct 2018

Starmill said:
Those who pronounce on what was or was not "intended" to be valid are, in my view, almost always wrong. There is no way for you to know what was intended in the mind of the person who set the product, even if you think you have got good evidence you are still not necessarily correct.

Precisely... Absent a generic set of rules, the conditions of travel would be so extensive as to be unusable - or so rigid that there would be no allowance for those who genuinely needed flexibility while using the system. Some of the things we see as 'loopholes' are undoubtedly consequences of the need to have a fairly generic set of rules for what is a very complex network. And of those consequences necessary for flexibility - some will indeed be loopholes because the designers of the rules did not foresee them, while others may have been obvious and understood but accepted, when the rules were set, for the sake of 'relative simplicity'. Without being in the minds of those who set the rules we cannot be sure what are loopholes and what were acknowledged and necessary consequences of the ruleset.

Let's take a look at a couple of things that some people often cite as loopholes:

Split ticketing might have started out as being seen as a loophole, whether those setting the rules were aware of the possibility of spilt ticketing from the start or not. But surely using combinations of tickets cannot really be seen as a loophole now, as the right to do so has been enshrined in the NRCoT.
Likewise starting / finishing short - recognised as a right in the NRCoT and thus not a true loophole. However, the right to start/finish short to enable flexibility for travellers has brought with it consequences such as cheaper journeys between intermediate stations or circumvention of peak/off peak rules. The answer to whether these consequences were understood but accepted, or whether they are loopholes, can really only be addressed by those who originally set up the rules.

The NRCoC / NRCoT have changed over time as shortcomings have been identified, but another mechanism for closing 'loopholes' in the railway's generic set of rules is [negative] easements. I think it fair to assume that many of these address circumstances that were not foreseen when the rules were defined. However, some may deal issues that were originally envisaged and accepted for the sake of simplicity, but having become abused over time had to be cut off. Again we can't really know for sure without delving into the decision-making processes of those who designed the rules.

Despite suggesting we can't be sure because we didn't design the rules, I think some of the issues that have been discussed recently in this forum are fair game for speculation:

St Pancras to Stratford via the Kent Coast: by most reasonable measures that fare is far too cheap and is therefore almost certainly exploiting a loophole, whether it came about by oversight in setting the rules that failed to prohibit continuing beyond destination, or as a result of a programming error in the journey planners.
Warwick to Hatton via Bristol Portsmouth and Reading: likewise a loophole, one that it seems has already been closed.
Stetchford to Northampton via New Street and Stetchford again: possibly a loophole, possibly a consequence of a flexible ruleset that was envisaged on a generic basis but accepted to preserve simplicity. However it came about, this one may be prohibited if abused or if someone (a TOC) becomes annoyed enough to have something done about it.

So to address @yorkie's original question, I do not like the term 'loophole' because it implies we understand what was originally intended by the rules, and more so because it has overtones of being slightly nefarious. I prefer the phrase: "using the full extent of rules to one's advantage"

Silverdale · 3 Oct 2018

Dai Corner said:
I think there's a moral difference in paying what you know is a ridiculously cheap price and paying the minimum you need to. Rather like extreme tax avoidance.

Even though it's a question of morality rather than legaility, I find nothing immoral about choosing the cheapest way of buying the validity I want from the range of tickets on offer. Is it any less moral than buying a '3 for the price of 2' offer at a supermarket? Can those who eschew that offer and pay for the 3 items singly claim some kind of moral superiority over those who choose the offer?

As for the £6.40 ticket to travel to Statford via Ramsgate, I think it became clear that it didn't allow getting off the train at any point between the first stop at Stratford and the second so it doesn't have any validity as a means of travelling from St Pancras to Ramsgate, Deal or anywhere else around the loop. But even if the fare and terms had been set so it did, why should a customer face moral oprobrium for using it? It's called finding a bargain. No different to spotting a Picasso sketch in the bottom of a box of junk at a car boot sale, buying the box for a few quid and selling the sketch for a few thousand. The seller is not being ripped-off, through underhand tricks, lies or deception. He had every opportunity to see what was in the box and how to price it before he put it on his car boot stall.

_toommm_ · 3 Oct 2018

Silverdale said:
Even though it's a question of morality rather than legaility, I find nothing immoral about choosing the cheapest way of buying the validity I want from the range of tickets on offer. Is it any less moral than buying a '3 for the price of 2' offer at a supermarket? Can those who eschew that offer and pay for the 3 items singly claim some kind of moral superiority over those who choose the offer?

As for the £6.40 ticket to travel to Statford via Ramsgate, I think it became clear that it didn't allow getting off the train at any point between the first stop at Stratford and the second so it doesn't have any validity as a means of travelling from St Pancras to Ramsgate, Deal or anywhere else around the loop. But even if the fare and terms had been set so it did, why should a customer face moral oprobrium for using it? It's called finding a bargain. No different to spotting a Picasso sketch in the bottom of a box of junk at a car boot sale, buying the box for a few quid and selling the sketch for a few thousand. The seller is not being ripped-off, through underhand tricks, lies or deception. He had every opportunity to see what was in the box and how to price it before he put it on his car boot stall.

How does one make this fare come up? Can't seem to get an itinerary for this...

Kite159 · 3 Oct 2018

_toommm_ said:
How does one make this fare come up? Can't seem to get an itinerary for this...

Details are here - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...n-board-and-travel-via-the-kent-coast.170429/

Dai Corner · 3 Oct 2018

Silverdale said:
Even though it's a question of morality rather than legaility, I find nothing immoral about choosing the cheapest way of buying the validity I want from the range of tickets on offer. Is it any less moral than buying a '3 for the price of 2' offer at a supermarket? Can those who eschew that offer and pay for the 3 items singly claim some kind of moral superiority over those who choose the offer?

As for the £6.40 ticket to travel to Statford via Ramsgate, I think it became clear that it didn't allow getting off the train at any point between the first stop at Stratford and the second so it doesn't have any validity as a means of travelling from St Pancras to Ramsgate, Deal or anywhere else around the loop. But even if the fare and terms had been set so it did, why should a customer face moral oprobrium for using it? It's called finding a bargain. No different to spotting a Picasso sketch in the bottom of a box of junk at a car boot sale, buying the box for a few quid and selling the sketch for a few thousand. The seller is not being ripped-off, through underhand tricks, lies or deception. He had every opportunity to see what was in the box and how to price it before he put it on his car boot stall.

I'd say the supermarket '3 for 2' analogy is more akin to knowing that a day return is generally little more than two singles. Using ones specialist knowledge to look for a very cheap anomalous fare for your journey is more like looking for an expensive bottle of Champagne accidentally mispriced as a cheap Prosecco.

If I'd bought that Picasso from an Art dealer I'd think 'tough, he should have realised'. If it was from a charity shop I'd donate part of my profit. My attitude to the car boiler would depend on whether he was someone clearing out his garage or a professional trader. I know this is inconsistent with the stance I take with TOCs and tickets!

Haywain · 3 Oct 2018

In answer to the original question, I see a loophole as being something that is a less than obvious means of saving money while being entirely valid but at the same time is something that the TOCs would happily put a stop to if they have the opportunity. What is definitely not a loophole is using tickets in a way that leaves the user open to potential (legitimate) prosecution, such as "doughnutting" or short faring, for example.

Others may feel the word loophole has different meaning in railway ticketing terms and that's fine - there is no necessity to be in agreement on this.

Mag_seven · 3 Oct 2018

Haywain said:
What is definitely not a loophole is using tickets in a way that leaves the user open to potential (legitimate) prosecution, such as "doughnutting" or short faring, for example.

Well that fare "evasion" pure and simple. Could the use of loopholes on the contrary be see as fare "avoidance"? (thinking of the tax analogy)

Haywain · 3 Oct 2018

Mag_seven said:
Well that fare "evasion" pure and simple.

Absolutely, but some people engaging in such activities may see it as exploiting loopholes, such as a lack of on-train ticket inspections, until they are caught.

Mag_seven said:
Could the use of loopholes on the contrary be see as fare "avoidance"? (thinking of the tax analogy)

I thought of using such an analogy myself!

Dai Corner · 3 Oct 2018

Mag_seven said:
Well that fare "evasion" pure and simple. Could the use of loopholes on the contrary be see as fare "avoidance"? (thinking of the tax analogy)

Haywain said:
Absolutely, but some people engaging in such activities may see it as exploiting loopholes, such as a lack of on-train ticket inspections, until they are caught.

I thought of using such an analogy myself!

Me too

Dai Corner said:
Even to the extent of the example which started the original thread; paying for a St Pancras - Stratford single and going for a three hour tour of Kent? I'll admit that falls outside your 'from where I am to where I want to be' though.

I think there's a moral difference in paying what you know is a ridiculously cheap price and paying the minimum you need to. Rather like extreme tax avoidance.

Silverdale · 3 Oct 2018

Dai Corner said:
Using ones specialist knowledge to look for a very cheap anomalous fare for your journey is more like looking for an expensive bottle of Champagne accidentally mispriced as a cheap Prosecco.

OK, but how do you know the mispricing is accidental? If it is because a price ticket with barcode matching the Prosecco has been stuck on a bottle of champagne, I would declare the analogy false. If, on the other hand, the shelf label says; "V Posh Champagne - £N", the £N might be a mistake, but it's a genuine offer and analogous to the offer of the very cheap rail fare.

So, assuming that is the case, if you are looking to buy a bottle of champagne and, having used your specialist knowledge of wine, realise that some vintage Dom Perignon has been priced extremely cheaply, what is the more moral course of action?

a) Buy a bottle of the 'mispriced' fizz and enjoy.
b) Buy every single 'mispriced' bottle and give them as Xmas presents to friends and family.
c) Buy a couple of bottles, then tell everyone down the pub there's a bargain to be had at W**t**se.
d) Buy the other brand of champagne you had originally budgeted for.
e) Buy a bottle of the 'mispriced' champagne, but donate the cash difference you saved to charity.

My opinion is that as far as your interaction with the store is concerned, all 5 actions are morally equivalent as the store has received the payment they asked for, for the product you purchased. You have no moral duty to avail the store of your wine expertise and suggest they might have made a pricing error, or offer to reduce any loss they might have incurred due to their mistake.

As far as your interaction with the world, generally, is concerned, the 5 options are not morally equivalent, as you are making choices about whether and to what extent you give others the benefit of your insight. The moral values of those choices is an interesting topic for discussion... but on a completely different forum.

Dai Corner said:
If I'd bought that Picasso from an Art dealer I'd think 'tough, he should have realised'. If it was from a charity shop I'd donate part of my profit.

I wouldn't veer too far from that. But are there any train companies which are registered charities?

"Exploiting a loophole": what does this mean, and what are the implications

Forum Staff

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Forum Staff

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member