Combination of tickets from London to Peterborough

[yorkie]

But we know that if a customer holds a ticket from A-B and travels on to C, they should be charged an excess (ie taking into account the fare already paid A-B) to C for 'over-riding'.

The question is whether a customer holding a ticket from A-B and an additional ticket from B-C, can be charged a brand new ticket (ie not taking into account the fare(s) already paid) because they are deemed not to be 'over-riding'?

In other words, can it really be worse for the train to run non-stop when using a combination, than to hold no ticket for part of the journey?!

If so that's absolutely incredible (email to Private Eye on standby....!)

 

[Flamingo]

As I said, I would say that it depends on when they are discovered. Condition 18 " If you travel beyond the destination shown on the ticket, you will be treated as having joined the train without a ticket for that additional part of your journey. The relevant parts of Condition 2 or 4 will apply for that additional part of your journey."

If an over-riding excess is not appropriate, I suppose that there would be nothing to stop the person purchasing a new VALID ticket and sending the other tickets "mistakenly" purchased for a refund.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . can it really be worse for the train to run non-stop when using a combination, than to hold no ticket for part of the journey?!

I think that is exactly how the Regulations, when read together, can be read.
Whether that is the ONLY way that they can be read (having regard to all other Terms, Conditions, Regulations, Easements, Maps, Negaitve Easements and local instructions, custom and practice) is something I cannot comment on.

That may not be the outcome that was intended when each fragment of the Regulations were drafted, and I'm not aware of any Review of the Regulations which has subsequently sought to rationalise any disproprtionate application of these Regulations in test circumstances, so it may be that there are only a handful of people who have studied the Regulations carefully enough, and considered many real-life anomalies such as this, and then gone on to contrast differing outcomes which bring inconsistencies such as this into sharp focus, to reach any concusions about their consistency. But (in my opinion) that is how the Regulations stand.

It offends natural justice to say that a cost of 3 minus (1 + 1) already paid does not equal 1 remaining to be paid.
But this is the application of a myriad of unconnected and ageing regulations all introduced to deal with matters which never anticipated 3 = 1 + 1 + 1
But, lets not confuse simple arithmetic with Railway Regulations.

In other transactions, (possibly all other transactions), then every instalment of a payment discharges a degree of the debt/liability.
Whether it is buying produce, obtaining a future service, reducing a debt, transferring assets, reducing a legal penalty, aquiring a future right, approving the Terms of a Will, or arranging to aquire a proprtion of a future benefit - the simple arithmetic appears to apply. But in the case of folk travelling on trains, then the simple addition of parts of the payment do not amount to the whole payment. (I look forward to my friends on here providing me with other exceptions).

 

[Flamingo]

We're back into the whole area of split ticketing, and the argument as to whether it is an attempt to avoid payment of the fare due for the journey.

In certain circumstances the purchase of split tickets can be of benefit to the passenger. In those where the passenger falls foul of the rules, then the advantage lies with the TOC. Swings and roundabouts.

Regarding the argument that they are worse off financially, well, it is no different that if somebody buys a child ticket or a railcard discounted ticket they know they are not entitled to, and then gets charged a new ticket. They have already paid a certain amount, but by failing to follow the conditions, they have forfeited that cash.

 

[RJ]

Yes, let's all slate Condition 19, get the media to put ATOC under pressure and get them to change it citing "customer convenience" rather than to prevent revenue loss. Then those of us who actually use it in practice (rather than hypothetically) to save money can lose out!

No doubt the person referred to in the first post who did that thought they were being clever to save money. It should be a given that if you try something like that and get it wrong then you should face the consequences! I do practise what I preach - at present I use one split to make a 100+ mile journey which requires 7 or 8 bullet points to explain why it's valid (which I am not willing to do on board as it's not my job to provide training) but the homework has been done!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Having strayed from the OP enough already, I don't feel either of us should apologise for straying further!
So . . . .
Re:

We're back into the whole area of split ticketing, and the argument as to whether it is an attempt to avoid payment of the fare due for the journey.

Its worth noting that 'split ticketing' as we now call it is often a MORE EXPENSIVE way of completing a journey than the cost of an end - to - end ticket might have been.
(I've been in that situation myself on a number of occasions. e.g. I plan to go from Newcastle to Edinburgh (and back). Events transpire. I now want to go on to Glasgow. I pay more. The total is more than the origianl cost. Its happened quite often and is nothing to do with "attempting to avoid payment".)

Other less savvy passengers might quite innocently try to book a journey in stages - not realising that they deny themselves the opportunity to be offered cheaper direct tickets. (I've seen at least 3 of these situations posted on here in the past 10 days).

I'll repeat - Split ticketing can be cheaper than the equivalent direct ticket and it can be more expensive than the equivalent direct ticket.

 

[Flamingo]

Having strayed from the OP enough already, I don't feel either of us should apologise for straying further!
So . . . .
Re:Its worth noting that 'split ticketing' as we now call it is often a MORE EXPENSIVE way of completing a journey than the cost of an end - to - end ticket might have been.
(I've been in that situation myself on a number of occasions. e.g. I plan to go from Newcastle to Edinburgh (and back). Events transpire. I now want to go on to Glasgow. I pay more. The total is more than the origianl cost. Its happened quite often and is nothing to do with "attempting to avoid payment".)

Other less savvy passengers might quite innocently try to book a journey in stages - not realising that they deny themselves the opportunity to be offered cheaper direct tickets. (I've seen at least 3 of these situations posted on here in the past 10 days).

I'll repeat - Split ticketing can be cheaper than the equivalent direct ticket and it can be more expensive than the equivalent direct ticket.

Yes, I've seen that as well, but it is most often encountered as an attempt to reduce the cost. I had a chap last night with four splits on a Pad-Swa journey.

 

[tannedfrog]

For completeness should I post what actually happened?

I don't want to do so though if there is a chance of an EC manager reading this, identifying the actual incident, and saying it is a black and white situation whereby the guard should have done x, and will be disciplined for doing y or z.

 

[34D]

Just to throw a spanner in the works (and ignoring the railcard, and also ignoring the absurdity of peterborough not being in the NSE zone but other places such as Kings Lynn and Long Buckby being in), it isn't possible to purchase a boundary zone 6 to peterborough.

Because the travelcard isn't a season, I don't believe a Hadley Wood-Peterborough ticket would allow the non-stop train (but comments welcomed).

Therefore the customer _had_ to buy tickets 2 and 3 as there was no other way to do it......

For completeness should I post what actually happened?

I don't want to do so though if there is a chance of an EC manager reading this, identifying the actual incident, and saying it is a black and white situation whereby the guard should have done x, and will be disciplined for doing y or z.

I would recommend PMing yorkie and davenewcastle with this info and letting them put a post on the forum (or not) after their editing.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not so interested in this exact case, and as the customer isn't around to give us full details there's no point perusing it, and depending on various factors the action taken may have been correct anyway. In this particular case there was not much value in any of the original tickets bought, it's complicated by the zonal tickets, and we don't know if the customer was returning.

However it is the principle I am concerned with, and simpler examples can be used.

To take an extreme, but simple, example:

A customer holds a Newcastle-Stevenage Anytime Single (£140.50), and a Stevenage-London Anytime Single (£12.70), and accidentally boards the non-stop train. Are they then to be told that their combination is worthless and sold a new single at £105.50? True, they can get refunds on the original tickets, but lose £20 on admin fees?

Yet a customer holding just the Newcastle-Stevenage ticket and is travelling "over distance" would be charged an excess of £0.00.
​

I find this impossible to accept. That appears to be what HHF is suggesting. Can it be true? Or are we being given incorrect information?

 

[dvboy]

I think you mean the same starting station, Yorkie?

 

[yorkie]

I think you mean the same starting station, Yorkie?

Yes, sorry, changed my mind about the example! Now corrected However the point would actually have stood exactly as posted I believe, as the excess would still be £0.00, as the fares are the same! But, for consistency and to keep it simple I have changed it.

 

[34D]

I'm not so interested in this exact case, and as the customer isn't around to give us full details there's no point perusing it, and depending on various factors the action taken may have been correct anyway. In this particular case there was not much value in any of the original tickets bought, it's complicated by the zonal tickets, and we don't know if the customer was returning.

However it is the principle I am concerned with, and simpler examples can be used.

To take an extreme, but simple, example:

A customer holds a Newcastle-Stevenage Anytime Single (£140.50), and a Stevenage-London Anytime Single (£12.70), and accidentally boards the non-stop train. Are they then to be told that their combination is worthless and sold a new single at £105.50? True, they can get refunds on the original tickets, but lose £20 on admin fees?

Yet a customer holding just the Newcastle-Stevenage ticket and is travelling "over distance" would be charged an excess of £0.00.
​

I find this impossible to accept. That appears to be what HHF is suggesting. Can it be true? Or are we being given incorrect information?

This is a slightly bad example, as there are no non-stop trains Newcastle to Stevenage, so the new ticket would be Peterborough-London or at worst Grantham-London (start/end of day oddities excepted). HHF was talking about the ticket not being valid after the previous calling point (I think)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Because the travelcard isn't a season, I don't believe a Hadley Wood-Peterborough ticket would allow the non-stop train (but comments welcomed).

Therefore the customer _had_ to buy tickets 2 and 3 as there was no other way to do it....

There was another way to do it, a London to Peterborough ticket, that was a valid ticket for the journey being made.

....However it is the principle I am concerned with, and simpler examples can be used.

To take an extreme, but simple, example:

A customer holds a Newcastle-Stevenage Anytime Single (£140.50), and a Stevenage-London Anytime Single (£12.70), and accidentally boards the non-stop train. Are they then to be told that their combination is worthless and sold a new single at £150.50? True, they can get refunds on the original tickets, but lose £20 on admin fees?

Yet a customer holding just the Newcastle-Stevenage ticket and is travelling "over distance" would be charged an excess of £10.00.
​

I find this impossible to accept. That appears to be what HHF is suggesting. Can it be true? Or are we being given incorrect information?

If the train was non-stop, yes I would expect a new fare to be offered from the origin to the destination, that is what the rules say. This, I suspect, is one reason why clerks are not required to offer split fares (there are a few others).

If someone goes to the lengths of looking in the NRCoC for a cheaper way to do things, they should be expected to understand the risks, which are pretty clear, and accept the consequences of their actions.

If the train had calling points on the way, I would expect the Guard to issue a ticket from the last stop the passenger's ticket was valid, in accordance with Condition 19.

As a side note, if the two tickets they held were issued as one transaction, the tickets may be refunded under one application (one admin fee), unless, of course, they are non-refundable fares.

 

[RJ]

We're back into the whole area of split ticketing, and the argument as to whether it is an attempt to avoid payment of the fare due for the journey.

In certain circumstances the purchase of split tickets can be of benefit to the passenger. In those where the passenger falls foul of the rules, then the advantage lies with the TOC. Swings and roundabouts.

Regarding the argument that they are worse off financially, well, it is no different that if somebody buys a child ticket or a railcard discounted ticket they know they are not entitled to, and then gets charged a new ticket. They have already paid a certain amount, but by failing to follow the conditions, they have forfeited that cash.

I'm of the strict opinion that a valid combination = appropriate fare paid. Black and white matter. By the same token, an illicit attempt at playing the system should be penalised. I aim to pay the cheapest possible fare, my sole intention being to save money. So long as I know that I can justify what I've paid with reference to the appropriate documentation then I'm happy.

The powers that be are more than welcome to make changes in order to prevent this type of thing but until they do, it's there for people to take advantage of. Friends often ask me how on earth I get around for next to nothing, yet still win all disputes with TOCs and I tell them "If you don't mind getting Penalty Fares, UFNs for £100+ or reported for prosecution then I'm more than happy to sit down and talk you through it. But if that happens to you, I won't be there to sort it out for you" 100% of the time people decide its not worth it. SensIble people won't play around with a system that they don't know about. Having said that, every time I'm "penalised" I get any sanctions stuck off, refunds in full and compensation - frontline staff need to stop inventing rules/ doing people "just in case" their tickets are invalid. If they're not sure then they should either check, or leave it.

Saving money means you need to do your homework. Otherwise, National Rail Enquires is sufficient for seeing which ticket is appropriate for the journey to be made. People say the system is complex but that's only the case if you make it. The "simple" workarounds are often rectified soon after they become common knowledge so by nature, more digging is required to find the best ways to save. It also means more hassle with ticket inspectors who may not know if or why your ticket is valid in which case one has to expect

I could quite easily publish a list of places to look for subtle "oversights" to be taken advantage of but I don't see the point as it will ruin it for those who have also put the effort in to find these things out.

 

[benk1342]

Aren't the rules written the way they are at least in part because of the way revenue is allocated? I assume that the revenue from BZ6–Huntingdon tickets will go almost entirely to FCC (leaving the possibility that someone would take East Coast to Stevenage and then switch to FCC), while Huntingdon–Peterborough would go entirely to FCC since no other operator covers that route (journey/flow/whatever the correct term is). These people were travelling on East Coast but paying FCC. Understandably East Coast isn't cool with that, and the rules are there to protect it in this kind of situation.

 

[yorkie]

Aren't the rules written the way they are at least in part because of the way revenue is allocated? I assume that the revenue from BZ6–Huntingdon tickets will go almost entirely to FCC (leaving the possibility that someone would take East Coast to Stevenage and then switch to FCC), while Huntingdon–Peterborough would go entirely to FCC since no other operator covers that route (journey/flow/whatever the correct term is). These people were travelling on East Coast but paying FCC. Understandably East Coast isn't cool with that, and the rules are there to protect it in this kind of situation.

Revenue isn't really relevant here, if one (and only one!) of the tickets had been a Season then it would be valid.

Revenue allocation is sometimes erroneously used by TOC employees to justify why a ticket or tickets should not be accepted. But it's not how the system works in reality.

 

[tannedfrog]

Revenue isn't really relevant here, if one (and only one!) of the tickets had been a Season then it would be valid.

Interesting that you say this, revenue allocation was the main argument from the guard as to why the combination wasn't valid

 

[yorkie]

This is a slightly bad example, as there are no non-stop trains Newcastle to Stevenage

It's perhaps not the best, but it is plausible, and there doesn't need to be; the customer could have in mind the 0630 from Newcastle, which does require a change. And then miss it, and end up getting the 0703. They may (incorrectly) think that a Stevenage to London would make their ticket valid via London without realising an excess should be purchased. OK, it's unlikely but possible.

so the new ticket would be Peterborough-London or at worst Grantham-London (start/end of day oddities excepted). HHF was talking about the ticket not being valid after the previous calling point (I think)

You may want to check the calling pattern of 1E01 0540 Edinburgh-London Ironically, it is in fact quicker to go into London on this non-stop Newcastle-London train and back out to Stevenage on FCC (assuming a 13 min change at King's Cross, not official but doable), than to change en-route on trains that call at intermediate stops.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting that you say this, revenue allocation was the main argument from the guard as to why the combination wasn't valid

Which leaves me wondering whether the guard knew exactly why it wasn't valid but chose to give the moral argument instead, or whether the guard would in fact have denied the combination even if one of the tickets was a Season ticket. We'll never know the answer to that...

 

[tannedfrog]

Which excess costs nothing?
Newcastle to London Anytime is more expensive than Newcastle to Stevenage

 

[yorkie]

Which excess costs nothing?
Newcastle to London Anytime is more expensive than Newcastle to Stevenage

Sorry, I misread, the fares are:

Newcastle-London SOS £150.50
Newcastle-Stevenage SOS £140.50

The difference is therefore £10.00, not £0.00 as I incorrectly said earlier (I have amended the example).

We know, therefore, that a customer with just the £140.50 ticket will be charged £10 (as per 'over-distance' rules, as documented in EC Training Manual).

But HHF is proposing that a customer with a £140.50 ticket plus a £12.50 ticket will be charged £150.50.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm not proposing anything.

It is written, in black and white, in the contract between traveller(s) and Train Company(s).

 

[34D]

You may want to check the calling pattern of 1E01 0540 Edinburgh-London Ironically, it is in fact quicker to go into London on this non-stop Newcastle-London train and back out to Stevenage on FCC (assuming a 13 min change at King's Cross, not official but doable), than to change en-route on trains that call at intermediate stops.

I did say start of day oddities excepted.

Anyway, if someone boards E01 at newcastle (non-stop to kings cross) and doesn't immediately go to the guard, then surely by the time the guard does his walk-round the time to do an access has passed, and we are into new ticket territory anyway?

Noting that the excess ought really to have been done at newcastle ticket office in this scenario?

There was another way to do it, a London to Peterborough ticket, that was a valid ticket for the journey being made.

That is valid (subj to operator restriction) but doesn't factor in the ticket the customer already has. The customer isn't obliged to pay twice!!

Given there is no BZ6 to Peterborough ticket, then I believe EC should accept either Hadley Wood to Peterborough or else BZ6-hun and hun-pbo. I'd be interested to see what LTW would say here.

 

[yorkie]

I did say start of day oddities excepted.

Anyway, if someone boards E01 at newcastle (non-stop to kings cross) and doesn't immediately go to the guard, then surely by the time the guard does his walk-round the time to do an access has passed, and we are into new ticket territory anyway?

Noting that the excess ought really to have been done at newcastle ticket office in this scenario?

There's no reason why the ticket cannot be excessed so it should be excessed.

C7.1.8. Over-Riding – Travel to a destination beyond that on the ticket
Single Tickets; Opportunity to buy ticket before boarding

Charge the full Single fare for the extra journey. If cheaper, charge the difference between the fare paid and the full Single fare for the throughout journey.

If there was no opportunity to buy the ticket before boarding, then the excess would be to the "appropriate" (not "full") fare. However for travel on the 07:03 service, the Anytime ("full") fare is the "appropriate" fare.

 

[island]

The guard would excess to the SOS Newcastle to London Terminals. The full single fare for the extra journey would be SOS Newcastle to London Terminals, because any combination of tickets would presumably be invalid.