Complex Penalty Fare

[AndyLandy]

It can't help when we have nonsense such as a ticket marked off-peak being valid in the peak

Perhaps you could define "peak" for us, then?

Sadly there's no easy answer to deciding what is or isn't peak, hence why we have all these weird easements and rules. I recently travelled from Southampton to Hartford on an off-peak +London ticket. The restriction code meant I wasn't allowed to leave Euston until after 0930, which in turn meant it was valid on the 0730 service from Southampton to Waterloo.

 

[yorkie]

Perhaps you could define "peak" for us, then?

Indeed! Such suggestions are extremely concerning. The DfT did actually plan something along those lines which would have effectively been a huge fare rise for many people. If all off peak tickets were not valid until 0930 it would result in:

• Near empty trains just before 0930 on many routes
• Unaffordable, unfair fare rises for certain journeys before that time
• More journeys have to use "split ticketing" (typically at the first station after 0930!) to be affordable
• Modal shift away from rail travel for journeys made at shoulder-peak periods
• More overcrowding on the first trains from certain stations after 0930

I will use my Par to Glasgow example.

To anyone who thinks all off peak tickets should not be valid until 0930, I ask this:

What is the 'fair' price for a return ticket travelling on the 0928 Par-Glasgow and the 0900 Glasgow-Par? An Off Peak Return used to be valid but it now requires an Anytime at £420. Splitting reduces it to £208.60, that's less than the through Child fare.

Now give me the 'fair' price for a return ticket travelling from Bodmin Parkway to Edinburgh on the exact same trains? An Off Peak Return is valid for that journey so the current price is £190.20.

The Par to Glasgow passengers are being charged an additional £230 due to the Par-Bodmin and Glasgow-Edinburgh portions of the journey being before 0930.

 

[Eagle]

The restriction code meant I wasn't allowed to leave Euston until after 0930, which in turn meant it was valid on the 0730 service from Southampton to Waterloo.

I had this recently on a Salisbury to Edinburgh ticket; using an Off-Peak Return on the 07.45 the guard said "this technically isn't valid but I'll let you off", but I still felt I had to put him right about the total lack of restrictions on the Salisbury to London leg.

 

[jkdd77]

In addition to my previous case, I also think that a solid case could be made that it is disproportionate for higher rate PFs to be issued for accidental use of a TOC-specific flexible ticket on trains run by a different TOC, all the more so now that PFs are not currently issued for using an advance ticket on the wrong train.

I have occasionally seen TOCs 'borrow' each others rolling stock, and it is not always easy for a casual passenger to understand the meaning of the letters "FCC only", or tell whether a certain service is run by a certain TOC.

In such cases, paying the full Anytime Single, on top of the worthless fare already paid, not to mention the risk of prosecution, ought to be a sufficient deterrent to misuse of TOC-specific tickets.

 

[RJ]

Whilst this PF business is going on, I have an outstanding UFN from the first week in October when my commute recommenced. I had valid tickets on that day, plus the notice had blatant things missing, such as part of the date of issue. I explained it all to IRCAS and they rejected the appeal. They gave 21 further days to pay the original amount.

I've had another letter from them stating they've added a £30 admin fee (it says £25 on the UFN) and I now only have 14 days to pay it.

This was the one where the TM let off another passenger who had gotten on the wrong train not stopping at Bedford, but decided to sting me for the full fare because he thought I should have been on a train that stopped at Bedford.

Dealing with these IRCAS people is too much of a headache. In future, I will flat out reject any PFN/UFNs staff want to issue and tell them to MG11 me instead. Perhaps if they know they'll have to stand up in court and talk nonsense when they know they don't know about tickets, they'll think twice before persisting. As has been stated, there is no reprisal for staff who frivolously hand out notices to passengers. Perhaps losing a few court cases is what is required for the TOCs to stop burying their head in the sand with respect to their employee's malpractice.

I'm pro revenue protection, but only if it is done properly and in accordance with the rules. That way it's fair on both the TOC and the passengers.

 

[Jeremy B]

..............I'm pro revenue protection, but only if it is done properly and in accordance with the rules. That way it's fair on both the TOC and the passengers.

Having followed your postings for some time now & given the pompous tone you adopt in your reports I have reservations as regards this statement.

 

[RJ]

Having followed your postings for some time now & given the pompous tone you adopt in your reports I have reservations as regards this statement.

Fair enough, it is quite a challenge to purvey suspicious of incompetence in an entirely pleasant tone. I just wish to be treated the way I treated people when I was working in revenue protection, fairly and correctly. I never, ever penalised anyone unless I knew for a fact that I could point out precisely where the nature of the passenger's transgression was written in black and white. Some other staff don't have a clue but penalise anyway - this is what I'm against.

 

[Clip]

Fair enough, it is quite a challenge to purvey suspicious of incompetence in an entirely pleasant tone. I just wish to be treated the way I treated people when I was working in revenue protection, fairly and correctly. I never, ever penalised anyone unless I knew for a fact that I could point out precisely where the nature of the passenger's transgression was written in black and white. Some other staff don't have a clue but penalise anyway - this is what I'm against.

Im with you on that count and it must be quite frustrating for you that this keeps happenning with every loophole you find.

Though on the one hand, as has been discussed on here many times, the TM/RPI cant know about every journey combination that may or may not be valid on their route - thats just human nature, If we TOCs do not provide them with on hand information then they will get it wrong. The bigger issue is those who are in charge of the TM and RPIs - who have different managers in most cases - are the ones who should sit there and fully check these things and come to the correct interpretation of what is in front of them. Let alone IRCAS who are meant to adjudicate these things correctly themselves. Its just not on.It has to be tackled from the top down.


Maybe you should get them to invite you over for a brew and go through things with them - or even invite them to one of the fares workshops - though understandably this may lead to an awful lot of tickets you use having restrictions placed upon them - something you probably dont want.

 

[SickyNicky]

In future, I will flat out reject any PFN/UFNs staff want to issue and tell them to MG11 me instead.

I must admit that I'm always a little surprised when you tell us you have accepted PFNs or UFNs.

I'm sure that if I were in that situation, where I was certain the tickets were valid and I had documentary evidence to hand to prove it, I would decline to sign anything that I wasn't happy with. I would obviously give my name and address as the law required.

 

[jon0844]

Could staff have better software to allow them to check the validity of tickets, given that RJ clearly checks out the validity before travel.

I wouldn't expect every combination to be known by staff, but if RJ can do the necessary checking, then so should rail staff. It should be quite quick and easy to enter the tickets held - and if that comes back 'negative', there is at least a route to appeal by checking the accuracy of that data.

 

[SickyNicky]

Could staff have better software to allow them to check the validity of tickets, given that RJ clearly checks out the validity before travel.

I wouldn't expect every combination to be known by staff, but if RJ can do the necessary checking, then so should rail staff. It should be quite quick and easy to enter the tickets held - and if that comes back 'negative', there is at least a route to appeal by checking the accuracy of that data.

I wouldn't trust any software issued to staff to be accurate to the Routeing Guide. National Rail Enquiries itself doesn't always get it right.

 

[jon0844]

I wouldn't trust any software issued to staff to be accurate to the Routeing Guide. National Rail Enquiries itself doesn't always get it right.

But it could get things right. I know that we'll be living on Mars before that happens, but it shouldn't be that difficult. If it is, then ticketing is clearly too complicated.

 

[mr williams]

So that people don't think that this is nothing new, or only post-privatisation, I can relate to this from 25 years ago.

Off-peak cheap-day returns were only valid on my line after 9.00am, but due to a gap in the timetable they were also valid on the 8.48 from my local unmanned station. I lost count of the number of times I had to argue the toss with the conductor despite being told by BR that I was right and promises that they would rebrief the on-train staff again.

When the problems continued I kicked-up an almighty fuss and received a letter from the Regional Manager of Western Region, apologising and suggesting that I show the letter to the conductor in the event of future problems.

Just two days later it happened again and when I went to show the conductor the letter from the Regional Manager his reply was "I don't care about your letter, I've been told by my supervisor that cheap day returns aren't until after 9 o clock"!

 

[All Line Rover]

But it could get things right. I know that we'll be living on Mars before that happens, but it shouldn't be that difficult. If it is, then ticketing is clearly too complicated.

It's the latter, but in no way is that an excuse for further 'simplification.'

 

[RJ]

I must admit that I'm always a little surprised when you tell us you have accepted PFNs or UFNs.

I'm sure that if I were in that situation, where I was certain the tickets were valid and I had documentary evidence to hand to prove it, I would decline to sign anything that I wasn't happy with. I would obviously give my name and address as the law required.

I've stopped signing them. It gets on their nerves but I politely explain that I'm not signing anything which states or implies that I didn't hold a valid ticket. I give my name and address and that's it. No DOB, NI number or any other details these nosy people want.

 

[barrykas]

Could staff have better software to allow them to check the validity of tickets, given that RJ clearly checks out the validity before travel.

They could...if they worked in a Ticket Office. Unfortunately, Avantix Mobile handles fare and journey enquiries separately from one another, so it's entirely possible to give someone an itinerary and then sell them a ticket that isn't valid (or vice versa!).

And with the PDF version of the NRG now running to 1180 pages, it's not particularly practical to refer to on train!

 

[AndyLandy]

I wouldn't trust any software issued to staff to be accurate to the Routeing Guide. National Rail Enquiries itself doesn't always get it right.

Although if you're looking for a "rule of thumb", using NRE to determine validity or otherwise seems like a good starting point.

 

[BrownE]

In future, I will flat out reject any PFN/UFNs staff want to issue and tell them to MG11 me instead.

Are passengers entitled to do this? Perhaps more specifically what I am asking is are there any legal implications to doing this?

I give my name and address and that's it. No DOB, NI number or any other details these nosy people want.

I quite agree. They keep asking for my age or "proof of address", which just gets refused flat out.

 

[island]

One is indeed not required to give ID or proof of anything to an RPI.

 

[RJ]

Are passengers entitled to do this? Perhaps more specifically what I am asking is are there any legal implications to doing this?


I quite agree. They keep asking for my age or "proof of address", which just gets refused flat out.

Suffice to say that I have complied with my legal obligations by providing a name and address.

Freedom of speech allows them to ask for whatever they like but so long as the legal minimum of required information has been provided, there is not a lot they can do.

 

[YorkshireRider]

Whilst this PF business is going on, I have an outstanding UFN from the first week in October when my commute recommenced. I had valid tickets on that day, plus the notice had blatant things missing, such as part of the date of issue. I explained it all to IRCAS and they rejected the appeal. They gave 21 further days to pay the original amount.

I've had another letter from them stating they've added a £30 admin fee (it says £25 on the UFN) and I now only have 14 days to pay it.

So does this now mean you have to pay it, or can you take it further?

 

[RJ]

So does this now mean you have to pay it, or can you take it further?

I'm not paying it so it will be up to them what they wish to do next. All these companies have to do is read what I say then consult the relevant documents to see if it checks out. If they did this then they would see that I'm right. However, they're only interested in going by what they think is right without checking with a veritable source!

 

[jon0844]

As I've always said - if people DO say 'see me in court', they're going to let it drop. Naturally, they'll say it is a goodwill gesture so as not to admit to anything.

 

[RJ]

Hmmm - I'm going to try a different tactic. I received a callback today after complaining previously. Customer Relations are absolutely adamant that I was rightly Penalty Fared for using an Off Peak ticket on that 05:45 train. They're also saying that they don't do excess fares on board and that I should have bought a ticket from the machine. The ticket offices at STP aren't open at that time.

It will be quite a challenge to get them to see where they're going wrong, but I'm getting there.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

I'm not suggesting a ban on current off-peak fares before 9am or 9:30, I'm suggesting that as the tickets are already valid at any time that the pointless SOR fare be abolished. OK so there'd be a few anomalies needing ironing out but it would leave ticket names and prices that make sense.

Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk

 

[LexyBoy]

The SOR/SOS fares function as a de facto penalty fare in those cases though; in some cases they may also be useful for those wishing to travel outwards over several days.

 

[RJ]

I'm not suggesting a ban on current off-peak fares before 9am or 9:30, I'm suggesting that as the tickets are already valid at any time that the pointless SOR fare be abolished. OK so there'd be a few anomalies needing ironing out but it would leave ticket names and prices that make sense.

Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk

I say leave it as it is. Ticketing is only as complicated as you make it!

 

[AndyLandy]

I say leave it as it is. Ticketing is only as complicated as you make it!

There's certainly some truth to that. If you go to a booking office and describe a journey and approximately what time you want to travel, they'll give you an itinerary and tell you how much it will cost. I suspect this system works flawlessly for 99% of customers. I've certainly used it successfully on many journeys.

 

[LexyBoy]

To quote one wiser than I: "why all this talk of change when things are bad enough already?"

 

[harz99]

The SOR/SOS fares function as a de facto penalty fare in those cases though; in some cases they may also be useful for those wishing to travel outwards over several days.

And unless the rules for priv tickets are changed, AR/SOR and AS/SOS will still be required for the basis of those tickets where an ADR/SDR or ADS/SDS fare is not available.