Admin fees and penalty fares - Reversed!

[orpine]

Some time ago I was trying to start a journey at Birmingham Moor Street. The ticket people there wouldn't let my buy a ticket "from" Yardley Wood (it's cheaper), because my journey hadn't started there. It's a perfectly valid ticket for the journey.

So I bought the "wrong" ticket they insisted on (from Moor street), a cost of about 40p more, and then complained to Chiltern when I got back. Eventually they admitted their mistake and sent me a voucher for £1.

But on principle I'm not satisified with that. They clearly charge a £10 administrative fee for changing a ticket, so I see no reason I can't charge them the same thing to them when they want to change a ticket. As they've been extremely reticent to pay the £10 (I got an offer of £5 "goodwill"), I've escalated it to £20 to replicate their own penalty fare policy.

Chiltern have now fobbed me off to Passenger Focus.


So my question to the forum - is this right? What's your take on charging the TOC's the same admin fee (or penalty fare) they charge their customers when the situation is reversed?

 

[PauloDavesi]

Good to see you're prepared to stand up to the TOC, the more people that do this, the quicker they will realise that they have to treat customers properly.

 

[michael769]

So my question to the forum - is this right? What's your take on charging the TOC's the same admin fee (or penalty fare) they charge their customers when the situation is reversed?

Can you highlight the part of the contract between you and Chiltern where Chiltern agreed to pay you an admin fee?

 

[cuccir]

Good luck on that!

I think it's certainly reasonable to expect them to cover for the time, effort and stress of following up a complaint. The £10 seems like a reasonable sum given (as you say) that's the charge that they'd make for someone wanting to change a ticket.

However (as I understand it and IANAL) admin fees are meant to be proportional, and related to charges incurred/time spent. In other words, adding punitive additional charges for late payment is illegal, or at least, cannot be enforced legally. Of course, many companies try this on anyway, and simply drop/lower the extra charge if challenged (see IRCAS cutting their admin charge in this case): they know that a significant proportion of people will pay.

In this instance, their refusal to offer you anything more than £5 seems a bit mean. I don't think, of course, that they're legally obliged to pay anything.

 

[Flamingo]

Sits back, gets out popcorn & drink...

 

[swt_passenger]

The hidden advantage for orpine is that if ever he makes an 'innocent mistake' on another occasion, possibly one deserving of a Penalty Fare, their revenue people will have all his details on file already.

Perish the thought, but they may even have him flagged as a 'potential troublemaker'.

Obviously the DPA means this could never happen of course... :roll:

 

[Timster83]

Some time ago I was trying to start a journey at Birmingham Moor Street. The ticket people there wouldn't let my buy a ticket "from" Yardley Wood (it's cheaper), because my journey hadn't started there. It's a perfectly valid ticket for the journey.

So I bought the "wrong" ticket they insisted on (from Moor street), a cost of about 40p more, and then complained to Chiltern when I got back. Eventually they admitted their mistake and sent me a voucher for £1.

But on principle I'm not satisified with that. They clearly charge a £10 administrative fee for changing a ticket, so I see no reason I can't charge them the same thing to them when they want to change a ticket. As they've been extremely reticent to pay the £10 (I got an offer of £5 "goodwill"), I've escalated it to £20 to replicate their own penalty fare policy.

Chiltern have now fobbed me off to Passenger Focus.


So my question to the forum - is this right? What's your take on charging the TOC's the same admin fee (or penalty fare) they charge their customers when the situation is reversed?

As another poster has suggested, there is no section of the NRCoC which specifies that the TOC will pay you a penalty fare, however on the flipside, the document doesn't specify what penalties TOCs must pay for breaching the NRCoC.

Morally I think you are absolutely right. I would send them a "letter before action" and then take them to court if they do not pay. You may find they are likely to settle for the same reason most passengers will settle when given the option of a penalty fare.

 

[Flamingo]

Or they might say "We've got deeper pockets than you"...

 

[CyrusWuff]

And they'd almost certainly apply for costs in the unlikely event of it actually getting to Court...

 

[bb21]

I am interested to know on what legal grounds the OP thinks that he is entitled to escalate costs in this manner.

He already had more than his share of refund, so most cheeky if I may.

 

[orpine]

The hidden advantage for orpine is that if ever he makes an 'innocent mistake' on another occasion, possibly one deserving of a Penalty Fare, their revenue people will have all his details on file already.

Perish the thought, but they may even have him flagged as a 'potential troublemaker'.

I've already had two penalty fares / unpaid ticket fare things. Both I won at appeal which is why I'm unwilling to be forgiving here.

Can you highlight the part of the contract between you and Chiltern where Chiltern agreed to pay you an admin fee?

They don't of course, but the principle is there that one can be charged. I don't believe the time of a customer is valueless. They delayed me at the station and then it took multiple emails just to get them to admit their mistake. I'm not using this as a profit centre.

Morally I think you are absolutely right. I would send them a "letter before action" and then take them to court if they do not pay.

Thanks, that's the plan after the unfortunately impotent Passenger Focus folks have been told to get lost by Chiltern.

I am interested to know on what legal grounds the OP thinks that he is entitled to escalate costs in this manner.

He already had more than his share of refund, so most cheeky if I may.

As mentioned above, my time as a passenger isn't valueless. 60 pence doesn't really count as much of "more than my share".

As to legal grounds - no idea, I'm not a lawyer, it just seems wrong. But it is my understanding a contract is supposed to be fair to both parties. I'd probably go for something based around - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power - I'll find some pro-bono help if it gets to that point.

And they'd almost certainly apply for costs in the unlikely event of it actually getting to Court...

Small claims court - the allowed solictor costs they can claim are only £100 or so I think; even if they send a QC. But I'm hoping to avoid that.

 

[bb21]

As mentioned above, my time as a passenger isn't valueless. 60 pence doesn't really count as much of "more than my share".

As to legal grounds - no idea, I'm not a lawyer, it just seems wrong. But it is my understanding a contract is supposed to be fair to both parties. I'd probably go for something based around - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power - I'll find some pro-bono help if it gets to that point.

Companies may be able to justify a charge of, say, £20 because they may have a complicated process involving several departments when they need to chase a passenger up for some unpaid fare. I don't think an individual can justify that.

But, good luck to you. If you can successfully manage it then it certainly opens up an interesting avenue.

 

[maniacmartin]

Companies may be able to justify a charge of, say, £20 because they may have a complicated process involving several departments when they need to chase a passenger up for some unpaid fare. I don't think an individual can justify that.

But, good luck to you. If you can successfully manage it then it certainly opens up an interesting avenue.

Companies have processes to send letters in an almost automatic way without really reading the correspondence (hence the OP having to send them multiple emails), and having form letters they can easily copy and paste. They buy paper, toner and postage in bulk. Their processing costs should therefore be less than that of an individual surely.

Also the fact that several emails were needed proves the company didn't read the emails and tried to fob the OP off, so it's hardly fair to say this was a simple one-off mistake, but rather more likely repeated fobbing off from the TOC. It's the norm for TOCs I'm afraid

 

[142094]

Factor in staffing costs though. You could say that buying a coffee at Starbucks only costs 50p to make in terms of ingredients and energy to heat the hot water, but the bulk of the cost will be for wages.

 

[bb21]

Companies have processes to send letters in an almost automatic way without really reading the correspondence (hence the OP having to send them multiple emails), and having form letters they can easily copy and paste. They buy paper, toner and postage in bulk. Their processing costs should therefore be less than that of an individual surely.

Letters may be sent automatically, but they also require proof-reading, require someone to read the original communication and take appropriate actions and make enquiries, which may well involve other departments, even if the end result is just sending a standard letter. Toner costs, etc, are miniscule as can be ignored in these cases.

There is more scope for a company to successfully argue that it costs them more than an individual writing a few letters. This is not to say that the OP will not succeed.

 

[maniacmartin]

I deliberately didn't factor in labour as the OP will have similar labour costs in their time writing to the TOC.

 

[sheff1]

Letters may be sent automatically, but they also require proof-reading, require someone to read the original communication and take appropriate actions .....

One would like to think so, and no doubt TOCs would make that claim. However, some of the letters I have received from TOCs* have been neither proof read nor generated by someone who had read my original communication. (Or, if they had, the person(s) concerned did not have a good enough grasp of the English language to enable them to do the job effectively).

* and elsewhere

 

[34D]

Good luck. You need to start keeping a detailed log of your time.

 

[bb21]

One would like to think so, and no doubt TOCs would make that claim. However, some of the letters I have received from TOCs* have been neither proof read nor generated by someone who had read my original communication. (Or, if they had, the person(s) concerned did not have a good enough grasp of the English language to enable them to do the job effectively).

* and elsewhere

I absolutely agree. The problem is if a TOC makes such a claim, how do you disprove it?

 

[Clip]

You mention a reverse penalty fare. Could you please show me your documented legal paperwork that has been approved by the appropriate bodies that does indeed state quite clearly that should you be inconvenienced when purchasing a ticket or indeed a service from any other service provider that you can and will indeed charge a 'penalty fare'. Also the agreement from the TOCs that they will have to abide by your rules when you want to purchase a ticket from them?


Not to say I dont think you should ask them for money for your time wasted - but this must be proportional - but if you are claiming it to be a reverse penalty fare then both parties surely must be in agreement before you can claim for one.

 

[34D]

You mention a reverse penalty fare. Could you please show me your documented legal paperwork that has been approved by the appropriate bodies that does indeed state quite clearly that should you be inconvenienced when purchasing a ticket or indeed a service from any other service provider that you can and will indeed charge a 'penalty fare'. Also the agreement from the TOCs that they will have to abide by your rules when you want to purchase a ticket from them?


Not to say I dont think you should ask them for money for your time wasted - but this must be proportional - but if you are claiming it to be a reverse penalty fare then both parties surely must be in agreement before you can claim for one.

I believe his penalty fare scheme has been approved by the same Regulatory Body who have approved Northern Rail's one.

 

[bb21]

I believe his penalty fare scheme has been approved by the same Regulatory Body who have approved Northern Rail's one.

Any evidence of that?

 

[Flamingo]

Of course, if orpine is running a penalty fare scheme, who can it be appealed to? He seems keen on appeals...

 

[jb]

Of course, if orpine is running a penalty fare scheme, who can it be appealed to? He seems keen on appeals...

Much like Northern's scheme, the "penalised" is at liberty to ignore the penalty and deal with the matter at court.

It should of course be called a (reverse) Fixed Penalty scheme. Important to be terminologically precise

 

[swt_passenger]

Any evidence of that?

I think he was getting at the fact that Northern's system of 'penalties' similarly has no real evidence for its existence.

It isn't a bona fide 'DfT approved PF scheme' at all, is it, going by discussions here anyway...

 

[bb21]

I think he was getting at the fact that Northern's system of 'penalties' similarly has no real evidence for its existence.

It isn't a bona fide 'DfT approved PF scheme' at all, is it, going by discussions here anyway...

Hmm. I see. I didn't notice the "Northern" bit. I thought he meant Chiltern since this is what this thread is about. I apologise about the misunderstanding.

Really this has nothing to do with Northern and these threads are supposed to be for serious discussions so best keep them on topic.

 

[455driver]

Really this has nothing to do with Northern and these threads are supposed to be for serious discussions so best keep them on topic.

Why are these threads different to all the other threads then?
The others manage to stay 'on track' for about 10 posts if they are lucky!

 

[Flamingo]

Of course, if a TOC simply files such a letter of claim in the waste-paper basket, is there much the aggrieved party can do about it?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

No. And if a passenger just keeps on making demands when the Company has made its decision that there is no further liaility or action to be taken, then they're likely to write back with a letter headed "Final Letter" and saying that they will issue "no further correpondence".

After that, an agrieved party either has to be quite creative (anyone remember 'Henry Root' ?), take a chance that a commercial invoice will be passed for payment (unlikely) or put their money where their mouth is and get on with proper proceedings in Court (risky).

 

[tony6499]

No. And if a passenger just keeps on making demands when the Company has made its decision that there is no further liaility or action to be taken, then they're likely to write back with a letter headed "Final Letter" and saying that they will issue "no further correpondence".

After that, an agrieved party either has to be quite creative (anyone remember 'Henry Root' ?), take a chance that a commercial invoice will be passed for payment (unlikely) or put their money where their mouth is and get on with proper proceedings in Court (risky).

Or just leave it and realise it is not worth the time or effort pursuing it