Change of route excess fares - clarification of the rules

It's been brought to my attention that some Guards think that it isn't possible to change the ticket type when issuing an excess fare for a change of route.

See: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/change-of-route-excess.46857/


The internal KnowledgeBase (iKB) states:

Change of Route
The Excess Fare to charge on-board where there was “opportunity to buy” before boarding the train

National Rail Conditions of Travel (Condition 13.4) permits customers to travel by a different route, from the one stated on the ticket or allowed by conditions of the National Routeing Guide, to make their journey on payment of an Excess fare. The Excess fare is calculated as follows:

Single tickets
The difference between the price already paid and price of the cheapest Single ticket, available for immediate travel, that allows the customer to travel on the route and Train Company of their choice

Return tickets - change of route in both directions
The difference between the price already paid and price of the cheapest Return ticket, available for immediate travel, that allows the customer to travel on the route and Train Company of their choice.

Return tickets - change of route in one direction only
Half the difference between the price already paid and price of the cheapest Return ticket, available for immediate travel that allows the customer to travel on the route and Train Company of their choice.

Click to expand...

A good example used to be in The Manual, but no longer published:

Example

A customer holds an Anytime Single from Hereford to Alton routed “not via London”. The customer wishes to travel via London on a day at a time when a Super Off-Peak Single is valid. If the customer does not wish to break their journey, they should be charged the difference between the fare already paid: Anytime Single (£38.50p) and the Super Off-Peak Single (£43). The Excess fare is £5·50. Note: This example is not necessarily the current fare.

Click to expand...

Here is a current example from me:

A passenger holds an Anytime Short Return (SHR) from Leeds to Preston routed via Burnley, and misses the 0754 direct train and decides instead to take the 0806 to Manchester, the Guard on that train would charge HALF the difference between the fare paid and the appropriate fare (lowest priced valid fare).

Assuming no Railcard discount is held, the fare paid is £24.70 and the appropriate fare is the Off Peak Return (SVR) priced at £32.00; the difference is therefore £7.30 and the excess in one direction only is £3.65.

It is not correct to charge a new ticket, nor is it correct to excess to the Anytime Return, nor is it correct to excess both portions if the customer only wishes to obtain the excess in one direction only. It's also incorrect to penalise people because of the medium the ticket is held in; the entitlement to this excess is not in any way diminished if the fare is an m-ticket, e-ticket for example.

If staff are unable to charge the correct amount, they are not allowed to charge any more than this.

yorkie said:

...


The internal KnowledgeBase (iKB) states:
..

Click to expand...

I've never seen the iKB - would a guard be able access it while en route?

JB_B said:

I've never seen the iKB - would a guard be able access it while en route?

Click to expand...

If they had Internet access (which isn't a given by any means!) and their company gave them access to it on a company/personal device (or they had heard 'through the grapevine' how to do so) then yes.

ForTheLoveOf said:

If they had Internet access (which isn't a given by any means!) and their company gave them access to it on a company/personal device (or they had heard 'through the grapevine' how to do so) then yes.

Click to expand...

It always amazes me that in such a rules-driven organisation as the railway all staff dealing with ticketing are not given access to it, a suitable device for doing so and training in its use as a matter of course.

It's almost like the attitude is "we mustn't physically break any trains or passengers, so we'll stick properly to that bit, but it doesn't matter if we treat our customers with contempt over fares matters so stuff doing that properly".

Back in the day, the guard would have their local Fares Manual for such things.

Mind you, back in the day Merseyrail ticket offices were still fairly incompetent...

Interesting.
I had this "problem" last week and was told by the independent ticket office at Ludlow that I would have to purchase new tickets (Ludlow - Paddington return) as they could not excess my Caersws - Euston return ones.
Now awaiting TfW's repayment of my original tickets.

yorkie said:

If staff are unable to charge the correct amount, they are not allowed to charge any more than this.

Click to expand...

If a customer is charged more, unless they read this forum, how would they know?

Are we 100% sure that it is still alright to buy a Change of Route Excess on-board when there was an opportunity to buy before boarding the train? Wasn't there a change in the Penalty Fare rules that appeared to contradict this right?

lyndhurst25 said:

Are we 100% sure that it is still alright to buy a Change of Route Excess on-board when there was an opportunity to buy before boarding the train? Wasn't there a change in the Penalty Fare rules that appeared to contradict this right?

Click to expand...

The entitlement to an excess is at least given in the NRCoT, so whilst the Penalty Fares Regulations appear to allow for a Penalty Fare to be charged in such circumstances, the NRCoT provision counts as permission to board without a valid ticket (where an excess is 'all' that is missing) and accordingly a Penalty Fare cannot actually be charged.

This is quite apart from the numerous other deficiencies and non-compliances which most Penalty Fares seem to have.

lyndhurst25 said:

Are we 100% sure that it is still alright to buy a Change of Route Excess on-board when there was an opportunity to buy before boarding the train?

Click to expand...

I quoted from the section titled "The Excess Fare to charge on-board where there was “opportunity to buy” before boarding the train", so yes I am 100% sure!

lyndhurst25 said:

Wasn't there a change in the Penalty Fare rules that appeared to contradict this right?

Click to expand...

The contract allows for an excess fare to be charged; it would be unlawful to issue a Penalty Fare.

Yes, the PF regulations do appear to contradict this right, because the person(s) who wrote that are not experts on contract law (unsurprisingly!) but it does not change the contractual position.

I intend to create a new thread on this at some point

(@furlong you may wish to contribute at this point?)

yorkie said:

Yes, the PF regulations do appear to contradict this right, because the person(s) who wrote that are not experts on contract law (unsurprisingly!) but it does not change the contractual position.

Click to expand...

They may either have been unaware of the NRCoT's permission to travel with an 'invalid' route-wise ticket, which rules out a Penalty Fare in those circumstances. Alternatively they may have included it to allow for a future change of policy on the matter, if the NRCoT and staff guidance is ever changed.

ForTheLoveOf said:

They may either have been unaware of the NRCoT's permission to travel with an 'invalid' route-wise ticket, which rules out a Penalty Fare in those circumstances. Alternatively they may have included it to allow for a future change of policy on the matter, if the NRCoT and staff guidance is ever changed.

Click to expand...

True; they may be plotting to change the NRCoT, rather than be incompetent.

I'm unsure which is worse!

Whether through ignorance, incompetence or mendacity, the Penalty Fares Regulations are a statutory provision, approved by Parliament. The terms of a contract (or, as is being pointed out on another thread, a guidance note) cannot override statute.

@ForTheLoveOf might be right that NRCoT can be read as implicit permission to board a train with a ticket which isn't valid without a change of route excess. But the exception in the Regulation which bars imposing a penalty fare, requires permission to be given to travel without a ticket. The provision in NRCoT relating to travel with a ticket valid by a different route, doesn't give such permission, so it's questionable whether that argument can be relied on.

Silverdale said:

Whether through ignorance, incompetence or mendacity, the Penalty Fares Regulations are a statutory provision, approved by Parliament. The terms of a contract (or, as is being pointed out on another thread, a guidance note) cannot override statute.

Click to expand...

If the contract states an excess fare is payable, then an excess fare is payable.

Silverdale said:

@ForTheLoveOf might be right that NRCoT can be read as implicit permission to board a train with a ticket which isn't valid without a change of route excess. But the exception in the Regulation which bars imposing a penalty fare, requires permission to be given to travel without a ticket. The provision in NRCoT relating to travel with a ticket valid by a different route, doesn't give such permission, so it's questionable whether that argument can be relied on.

Click to expand...

The NRCoT makes it clear that if "you are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid" then "you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using".

Silverdale said:

The terms of a contract (or, as is being pointed out on another thread, a guidance note) cannot override statute.

Click to expand...

You appear to be rather confused about the interplay of statute and contract here. The statute sets down circumstances in which TOCs are authorised to impose certain civil penalties; however, it also sets down a range of circumstances in which such a penalty may not be levied. If it were not for the NRCoT provision that time or route-restricted tickets can be excessed, then I agree that it would be akin to overriding the validity of your ticket inasmuch as for the purpose of Penalty Fares, it would be held to have no validity at all - accordingly, a Penalty Fare could, fundamentally speaking, be correct.

However, the NRCoT (the contract) then sets out the rights and obligations of each party, and in that contract the TOCs agree not to charge a Penalty Fare when you travel otherwise than in accordance with route or time restrictions applying to your ticket. This therefore not only acts as permission to board without a valid ticket, therefore preventing a Penalty Fare from being lawfully issued, but it would also give rise to a cause of action if a TOC nevertheless charged a Penalty Fare. This cause of action would be for breach of warranty, and would be for the difference between the amount of the Penalty Fare and the correct excess. So it is, in practice, perfectly possible for a contract to override statute, in terms of disapplying a right that the TOCs might otherwise have.

Silverdale said:

@ForTheLoveOf might be right that NRCoT can be read as implicit permission to board a train with a ticket which isn't valid without a change of route excess. But the exception in the Regulation which bars imposing a penalty fare, requires permission to be given to travel without a ticket

Click to expand...

When attempting to find a technical hole in someone's argument, it's always best if you're actually right. I can find no other interpretation of the clause from the NRCoT which @yorkie has quoted, other than that it serves as permission to travel without a ticket (as, for the purposes of Penalty Fares, a time or route restricted ticket used otherwise than in accordance with the restrictions is considered to be equivalent to holding no ticket at all).

I have to agree with the implication made by another poster in a thread where you commented along similar lines, namely that it is difficult to find any other explanation other than that your posts are intended to be vexatious.

ForTheLoveOf said:

When attempting to find a technical hole in someone's argument, it's always best if you're actually right. I can find no other interpretation of the clause from the NRCoT which @yorkie has quoted, other than that it serves as permission to travel without a ticket (as, for the purposes of Penalty Fares, a time or route restricted ticket used otherwise than in accordance with the restrictions is considered to be equivalent to holding no ticket at all).

Click to expand...

I have said that you may well be right, that NRCoT does give implicit permission for a customer with a ticket by a different route, to board a train, even where facilities exist to purchase an excess beforehand.

But how does that provision give implicit permission to travel without a ticket? If it did, the customer could travel to their destination without purchasing an excess.

Silverdale said:

I have said that you may well be right, that NRCoT does give implicit permission for a customer with a ticket by a different route, to board a train, even where facilities exist to purchase an excess beforehand.

But how does that provision give implicit permission to travel without a ticket? If it did, the customer could travel to their destination without purchasing an excess.

Click to expand...

The NRCoT makes it clear that if "you are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid" then "you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using".

In practice, staff may not be able to charge the correct excess. If that happens, they cannot charge the customer more. The company can charge the customer less (ie. not issue the excess) without breaching the contract.

I created this thread because I was given feedback from a customer that an EMT Guard claimed that a change of route excess could not be made to "a different type of ticket" and also, separately, from a conscientious Guard in another part of the country who sought clarification due to being given insufficient training in this area, and who is not given the ability to charge excess fares in certain situations.

If a company does not give its staff the ability to charge the correct excess, the only viable option is to allow the customer to travel without purchasing the excess.