Burnage to London via Manchester Picc didn't realise Burnage not a Manchester Station

[Starmill]

No it isn't. If you want a ticket from Burnage to London would you ask for a ticket "from a station in Manchester to London" or one "from Burnage to London"?

I would strongly advise against attempting this defence in court.

"I don't actually have an answer to your question, and I'm not going to entertain the idea long enough to think about it because I don't like it."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know, the madness I was referring to is if you make the assumption that 'Manchester Stations' means all stations in Greater Manchester are covered by the one destination. Hence a ticket wouldn't be needed to travel from Oxford Road any other station in the Greater Manchester area since they are all the same destination.

Given that from London most are the same price, this isn't at all "madness". It's best if you can refrain from terms like that, just to push your own views and discredit the OP as they are.

 

[najaB]

Surely the madness is using a vague term like 'Manchester Stations' rather than a list of the actual stations covered and expecting everyone to understand the situation.

The only place that 'Manchester Stations' appears is on the ticket - which you would receive after purchase. If I go online and search Burnage then it shows up as Burnage. The OP almost certainly bought a ticket from one of the group stations, then changed their plans. In that situation, given that the ticket office was open, they really should have checked with staff before boarding.

The discussion of the inequity of Northern's £80 ticket irregularity scheme is a separate matter and should really be discussed in a separate thread (of which several are available).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given that from London most are the same price, this isn't at all "madness". It's best if you can refrain from terms like that, just to push your own views and discredit the OP as they are.

If you read the post again, the reference to 'madness' is to what would happen if Manchester Stations meant all stations in Greater Manchester.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I know, the madness I was referring to is if you make the assumption that 'Manchester Stations' means all stations in Greater Manchester are covered by the one destination. Hence a ticket wouldn't be needed to travel from Oxford Road any other station in the Greater Manchester area since they are all the same destination.

I know what point you are making, but Manchester Piccadilly and Deansgate (for example) are "covered by the one destination" but you can buy a ticket between them. I don't see why that is more logical than assuming any station in the City of Manchester is a "Manchester station".

That said, I'd agree that the OP probably bought a ticket from Manchester Piccadilly and then changed their plans. The fact it is a zero excess doesn't change the law- plenty of caselaw still shows this as overriding or evading the fare- but that's a failing of the law.

The only place that 'Manchester Stations' appears is on the ticket

"Manchester Stations" is listed as a destination on WEBTis websites (as is Bradford Stations, Wakefield Stations, Liverpool Stations...)

 

[PermitToTravel]

Something that's worth bearing in mind:

When buying a ticket from Burnage to the Manchester Stations, it will print as a ticket from Burnage to "Manchester CTLZ", the Manchester Central Zone. Someone who lives in Burnage probably wouldn't ever see a ticket with an origin or destination of Manchester Stns except when buying a ticket from that group to somewhere outside the county (and of course that county includes many places not conventionally thought of as being in Manchester).

I'm not at all surprised that someone would think that the Manchester Central Zone and Manchester Stations are different things. Most people who aren't experts in rail ticketing would probably say that the latter includes places like Burnage and the former doesn't, if pressed to guess what the difference is.

 

[talltim]

Surely the fact that we are having this argument shows that the wording isn't clear?

 

[Haywain]

Something that's worth bearing in mind:

When buying a ticket from Burnage to the Manchester Stations, it will print as a ticket from Burnage to "Manchester CTLZ", the Manchester Central Zone. Someone who lives in Burnage probably wouldn't ever see a ticket with an origin or destination of Manchester Stns except when buying a ticket from that group to somewhere outside the county (and of course that county includes many places not conventionally thought of as being in Manchester).

However, it is also worth bearing in mind that when buying a ticket from Manchester Stations, the website will only produce an itinerary from Manchester Piccadilly (in respect of the journey in question). If an itinerary from Burnage is required, then Burnage will need to be stated as the origin station, resulting in the appropriate ticket.

 

[hounddog]

The only place that 'Manchester Stations' appears is on the ticket - which you would receive after purchase.

So it is therefore incumbent on the seller - be it booking office or website - to make clear what exactly is covered.

 

[Clip]

The OP needs to tell us how they bought their ticket before anymore discussion on the 'stns' side of things can get going.

You simply wouldn't buy the ticket they had if they were buying it from the clerk at Burnage as they would've asked for a ticket to London and received one printed Burnage to London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is via Manchester even permitted for such a ticket, or would one have to change at Crewe?

 

[sheff1]

So much for Northern's promises to TfGM that they'd only charge the £80 to repeat offenders where there's a clear intent to evade the fare, eh.

This is a key point, in my view, and I wonder if a Greater Manchester based member of this forum might consider taking it up - either directly with TfGM or via their local councillor?

 

[crehld]

Is via Manchester even permitted for such a ticket, or would one have to change at Crewe?

Definitely valid via Manchester (I assume you mean Burnage to London?)

 

[sheff1]

The OP needs to tell us how they bought their ticket before anymore discussion on the 'stns' side of things can get going.

Exactly. Until that question is answered discussion on 'stns' is merely a rehash of the discussion on the recent Wavertree Technology Park thread.

 

[najaB]

So it is therefore incumbent on the seller - be it booking office or website - to make clear what exactly is covered.

And for the purchaser to make clear what journey they intend to make.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Definitely valid via Manchester (I assume you mean Burnage to London?)

Yes. Thanks.

 

[6Gman]

Surely the madness is using a vague term like 'Manchester Stations' rather than a list of the actual stations covered and expecting everyone to understand the situation.

I agree, agree, agree.

What's wrong - in this case - with "Manchester Oxf Rd or Picc" ? (I've abbreviated so it'll fit on the tickets!)

 

[Starmill]

For a start it needs to include Vic...

 

[PermitToTravel]

It can't include Deansgate (and Victoria - isn't from there via Warrington a permitted route?) and fit and be comprehensible

 

[Camden]

If I was the OP I would pay it, to shut the issue down from a legal POV which will surely just lead to increased stress and upset if and when it escalates due to non-payment, and then take it up with a complaint afterwards, asking for the £80 back.

Yes the ticket was incorrect, but there was no loss and if this was being dealt with fairly and decently a zero excess ticket would just be issued instead of a box-ticking PF.

Rather like how TOCs have been given guidance to use their common sense when dealing with people starting short on advance fares where it is obvious the customer isn't gaming the system, they obviously also need guidance about not issuing PFs when there is zero difference in the price of the ticket.

Pay it, settle it. And then complain like nobody's business, go to the local paper, write to your MP, etc, etc, etc. As long as the matter is legally settled, you are then in the driving seat and it is they who are on the defensive (regardless of whether technically they are right or not).

 

[gray1404]

My advice to the OP would be to pay the £83 that is demanded, as it will make the risk of prosecution go away. I would then separately raise the issue through Northern's customer relations and then Transport Focus. If that doesn't work, there's always the MEN.

So much for Northern's promises to TfGM that they'd only charge the £80 to repeat offenders where there's a clear intent to evade the fare, eh.

This what I would do.

I wonder if you could also complain to TfGM as it took place in their area.

 

[LowLevel]

The sad thing about this 'nasty little con' as BestWestern put it (and as a guard I quite agree) is that people don't get it.

I warn people about it constantly on my trains. I'm greeted either with surprise and a degree of disbelief that I'm telling the truth, or outright dismissal and a declaration that I'm a jobsworth for not just selling them the ticket without talking to them. Warrington woman of the other week was a prime example on here - I see cases exactly the same as hers every day I work up there and people just keep jumping on to trains because they don't see the issue. Then a nasty person in a green and purple hi vis is waiting one day and instead of being charged their £4.10 for a Widnes - Lime Street single as they're used to they're being hit up for £80 or a date in a courtroom.

It's inconsistent and it does my head in. That's just people who do what they've always done without considering easy issues like the O/Ps - it just assumes malicious intent when there's no consequential loss. I sort problems out like that all the time without even a second thought.

 

[MamTor]

Thanks for your comments. Some were very useful.

It seems disproportionate, but I'm going to pay the £83, as unfortunately the cost, time and risks of other routes are potentially high.

For those of you who asked, my ticket was a return from London, which I bought from a machine at Euston. I travelled out to Manchester Piccadilly, but on the way back ended up coming from Burnage (which I thought would be ok as the ticket has Manchester Stations written on it).

In terms of the various comments above about misunderstandings around what Manchester Stations means, when I explained to the revenue officer at Piccadilly that I thought Burnage was a Manchester Station because it's in Manchester, rather than explaining what a 'Manchester Station' is, he twice told me that Burnage isn't in Manchester, it's in Greater Manchester. He eventually backed down, but took my details anyway.

Anyway, thanks again for people's help.

 

[reb0118]

As you have realised, you didn't have a valid ticket since Burnage isn't part of the Manchester Stations group. The cost of a Burnage to Manchester ticket is irrelevant as you didn't have one.

This above should not be forgotten. The above ticket held from Manchester bears no relation to the lack of ticket to Manchester neither in contract nor legal terms. In the terms for customer service I shall leave that to this august forum............

No, most would either issue a zero-fare excess.......

As I would've done had I found the passenger on my train.

It is absolutely disgusting that they are doing this, given that the fare from Burnage for the off peak return- £81.60- is the same as the fare from Manchester Stations. The excess fare would have been zero.

True, but the fare avoided is Burnage to Manchester CTZ @ £3.00. I'm not saying it is fair but I believe it is correct. That said other less punitive options would have also been no less correct.

Surely the madness is using a vague term like 'Manchester Stations' rather than a list of the actual stations covered and expecting everyone to understand the situation.

We had this problem in Glasgow with "Glasgow Stations" and passengers believing that they could travel to any station in Greater Glasgow (and in some cases beyond). Glasgow Stations was changed to Glasgow Cen/QSt to emphasise that it is only valid to either of the two main termini. This however has brought other complications with passengers now believing that they can choose which terminal to use e.g. Curriehill to Glasgow Queen Street via Falkirk.

It is still the case that we see passengers throughout Central Scotland with tickets to either Glagow Cen/QSt or Edinburgh issued from English stations - when challenged over their lack of valid ticket the invariable answer is the other company (currently VTEC & VTWC) said that it would be fine as the "fare is the same". The problem with letting this go is that it causes significant revenue loss to ScotRail (I'm sure Northern are in the same boat with Manchester Stns tickets) - excessing the ticket does not reallocate the revenue but does help to educate the passenger about through tickets which is a good thing.

I think the fairest thing in the OP's situation would be to charge the local fare from Burnage to Mancester CTZ @ £3.00 with a covering letter explaining the benefits of through ticketing. Northern have chosen a different route and unfortunately it is their choice.

 

[6Gman]

For a start it needs to include Vic...

Not from Burnage it doesn't!

You've highlighted another weakness - "Manchester Stations" can have different meanings ...

 

[gray1404]

Are you going to complain to Northern too or are you simply going to pay up and let that be the end of the matter?

 

[Starmill]

Not from Burnage it doesn't!

You've highlighted another weakness - "Manchester Stations" can have different meanings ...

It would still need to say all of them though...

 

[Ianigsy]

We had this problem in Glasgow with "Glasgow Stations" and passengers believing that they could travel to any station in Greater Glasgow (and in some cases beyond).

I distinctly remember that at some time in the late 1980s the London Midland Region (of blessed memory) brought in a system where long-distance fares from most if not all Merseyrail stations were set at the same as the equivalent fare from Lime Street. The sensible thing in hindsight would have been for the Merseyside origin and destination to have been described as something generic like "any Merseyrail station" but it wasn't, and Joe Public tends not to be the kind of accountant or management consultant to whom these kinds of things matter.

 

[Deerfold]

Not from Burnage it doesn't!

You've highlighted another weakness - "Manchester Stations" can have different meanings ...

No, but if you've a ticket from Burnage it wouldn't mention Manchester at all. We're talking about making the ticket from "Manchester stations" clearer to those who don't know what it means. There is a valid route from Victoria on that ticket.

 

[VisualAcid]

Instead of complaining would it not be easier to tweet a tabloid about how you are being charged £80 for having the same price ticket as the one you were supposed to? Or ar Northern not as bothered about such publicity

 

[reb0118]

.... you are being charged £80 for having the same price ticket as the one you were supposed to?.......

.......but when you look behind the flannel you will realise that no valid ticket was held between Burnage & Manchester.

I personally think that an £80 pound "administrative penalty" in this case is too strong, but my view is immaterial, and that the single fare should have been sold.

 

[323235]

This what I would do.

I wonder if you could also complain to TfGM as it took place in their area.

I would most definitely do this and also contact the TfGM Committee who are a separate function from TfGM and their Rail & Metrolink Committee who monitor rail reporting, rail performance and rail issues may pick it up for investigation as well.

http://www.transportforgreatermanchestercommittee.gov.uk/info/14/contact_us

In principle I agree with Northern's scheme but I feel that they should:

Have teams of RPI's on the trains day to day on different routes who check tickets in conjunction with the guard as well as doing spot checks daily at different stations

They should not hand out penalties to anyone where no amount of revenue has been lost or for innocent mistakes but maintain their name on a database should any other more serious irregularities arise

I think this would make their overall actions seem much fairer and not an attempt to make money out of people by dubious means.