Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
This is unlikely to happen. Either the ability to excess goes away, or it becomes contingent on being able to do so only before the departure of one’s train. The latter feels more likely to me.
Probably the most likely one is to modify the NRCoT and/or Penalty Fares rules such that in a Penalty Fares area any and all ticket changes must be done before boarding unless it was not possible to do so (which is a less strict rule than purchasing a ticket, as excesses tend to require a booking office, not just a TVM).
I doubt the likes of Avanti and LNER needing to do excesses on this sort of thing is really that much of an issue - after all, they voluntarily allow on-board First Class/Standard Premium upgrading* when this isn't something the NRCoT specifically entitles (it used to be, but it isn't any more - it was just abused by "pay when challenged" people in DOO areas).
* Or not. I've had about a 50% level of being asked to pay for the upgrade when using Avanti SP, though I don't upgrade any more because I prefer the new Standard seats. And with a walk up fare "paying when challenged" is the only permissible way to do so!
They won't end up repaying millions of pounds to people, it will just be brushed under the large rug. The review will conclude "mistakes were made due to the confusing nature of a condition which has now been rewritten to avoid future confusion" as well as the minimum fare either becoming all day or the railcard banned for use for any tickets before 10am to keep things simple as part of a review of the varying T&Cs of the various railcards.
And everybody will be happy that things have been made so much simpler for the public to understand.
Heck lets follow the lead of LNER and do away with off-peak all together and only have anytime or advance fares available, that way there can be no confusion over when a ticket is valid. Simples.
I think it's clear that the floodgates have been opened unfortunately. No surprise though, what do you expect when you attempt to apply a criminal sanction to a lapse over £3.40!?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Probably the most likely one is to modify the NRCoT and/or Penalty Fares rules such that in a Penalty Fares area any and all ticket changes must be done before boarding unless it was not possible to do so (which is a less strict rule than purchasing a ticket, as excesses tend to require a booking office, not just a TVM).
I doubt the likes of Avanti and LNER needing to do excesses on this sort of thing is really that much of an issue - after all, they voluntarily allow on-board First Class/Standard Premium upgrading* when this isn't something the NRCoT specifically entitles (it used to be, but it isn't any more - it was just abused by "pay when challenged" people in DOO areas).
* Or not. I've had about a 50% level of being asked to pay for the upgrade when using Avanti SP, though I don't upgrade any more because I prefer the new Standard seats. And with a walk up fare "paying when challenged" is the only permissible way to do so!
Exactly the point I was making. Conduct could be lawful and innocuous but become an offence when done with an intention to gain financial advantage by lying. It's a pretty widespread concept across criminal law. As you state I'm not sure I can see why anyone in the railway can object to that.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's worth noting that the supermarkets etc. are plagued by zombie drug addict shoplifters who deprive them of stock, and there isn't a lot they can do about it, and the police will just ignore them, so given the lawless country that the UK has degenerated into, it's not really obvious given that shoplifting (under £200) is almost decriminalised, why the TOCs should be given such a preferential treatment in that they haven't typically lost the ability to sell the seat.
Supermarkets can of course push for civil recoveries or prohibit specific people from their premises completely if they really don't like it. Railway companies can, quite equally, prohibit someone access to a train for ticket not being valid due to an excess for the minimum fare being required, if they want to.
If my tone is harsh it is because certain posters on this forum have (of late) been making some quite broad assertions about such-and-such not being an offence because the NRCOT says X, but without explaining the underlying reasoning.
I am very concerned that other posters are at potential risk of being misled into taking unwise actions in an attempt to defend prosecutions (or threatened prosecutions) without the benefit of legal representation.
An outcome which I am sure we would all wish to avoid if we can so it is important to chase these things through in order to establish that the posters arguing for these positions have a robust chain of reasoning and legal basis for them.
Can you please give me a bit more detail as to why you think a Chester to Liverpool Stations ticket on route Runcorn isn't valid via Birkenhead? Because as far as I can see Chester to Runcorn is perfectly valid via Birkenhead and it's perfectly permitted to use the permitted routes from origin to via point on the ticket then from the via point on the ticket to destination?
I agree that it is valid in accordance with the Routeing Guide provision for routed fares, but the key point is that this is not reliant on the NRCOT excess provisions.
Perhaps you might take into account the possibility of your own having made a minor error when you write posts - it'd probably be more convincing if you did, unless you really are infallible!
However, this example was specifically chosen in order to demonstrate the point i.e. it comes under NRCOT n.13.1 read in conjunction with the Routeing Guide, not NRCOT n.13.2.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Passengers who either once, occasionally, or routinely
- travel at a time not allowed by a time-restricted ticket
- are found to be travelling on the wrong route on a geographically-restricted ticket
- break their journey when not entitled
To repeat, again, they are allowed to pay the excess fare on the spot to correct the irregularity, and not just this, the railway says that is what *will* happen. It's not an "out" for first time "transgressors", it is the stated, mandatory resolution, each and every time, to correct one's ticket and pay the proper fare.
The requirement for the passenger to pay an excess fare is a contractual obligation, but does not sit in isolation.
It may well be the case that a passenger pays on the spot, but has also committed an offence. The payment of the excess fare (if it is paid at all) does not change this.
Penalty fares are issued in such circumstances. For example, in the case of travelling off route, the regulations specifically identify the route taken by the train as an element of whether a proffered ticket is valid or not. If the ticket is not valid because it is not valid by that route then a penalty fare may be charged, subject to compliance with all other relevant parts of the regulations.
Prosecutions are generally withdrawn en masse because of extra-legal reasons, such as perceived reputational harm or commercial considerations. We can read nothing into their withdrawal in terms of any concession on a point of law save as may be stated in open court.
It's a victory for common sense and a big yah boo sucks to the railway and the people who defend its greedy, dishonest pursuit of people. Some of us can read the Conditions! If you want this not to be the case, and to establish even more tasty deterrents and penalties for people who might otherwise be "getting away with it"...change the NRCoT!
They must be read alongside the Byelaws, all other fares offences under primary statute and the general law.
For the avoidance of doubt, I fundamentally disagree with your position that the NRCOT provide a complete answer on this matter and that they have the absolute effect (in terms of over-riding any applicable criminal offences) which you claim.
For example, if a passenger enters a train in a non-compulsory ticket area and travels using an off peak fare at a time when it is not valid then that would constitute an offence under Byelaw 18(1) unless one or more of the matters in Byelaw 18(3) applies(*). Even if (which I do not accept) NRCOT n. 9.5.1 constrains a TOC’s ability to prosecute that offence, the offence still subsists and can be prosecuted.
* There is an interesting and potentially fruitful discussion to be had in terms of @John Palmer ‘s suggestion that the NRCOT might be construed as permission for the purposes of Byelaw 18(3)(iii). I do not have a firm view on that at the moment.
If my tone is harsh it is because certain posters on this forum have (of late) been making some quite broad assertions about such-and-such not being an offence because the NRCOT says X, but without explaining the underlying reasoning.
I am very concerned that other posters are at potential risk of being misled into taking unwise actions in an attempt to defend prosecutions (or threatened prosecutions) without the benefit of legal representation.
An outcome which I am sure we would all wish to avoid if we can so it is important to chase these things through in order to establish that the posters arguing for these positions have a robust chain of reasoning and legal basis for them.
I agree that it is valid in accordance with the Routeing Guide provision for routed fares, but the key point is that this is not reliant on the NRCOT excess provisions.
I am certainly not infallible.
However, this example was specifically chosen in order to demonstrate the point i.e. it comes under NRCOT n.13.1 read in conjunction with the Routeing Guide, not NRCOT n.13.2.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I am going to put on record now that I do not agree with this assertion.
Such actions may constitute offences if the relevant ingredients of those offences are established.
The requirement for the passenger to pay an excess fare is a contractual obligation, but does not sit in isolation.
It may well be the case that a passenger pays on the spot, but has also committed an offence. The payment of the excess fare (if it is paid at all) does not change this.
Penalty fares are issued in such circumstances. For example, in the case of travelling off route, the regulations specifically identify the route taken by the train as an element of whether a proffered ticket is valid or not. If the ticket is not valid because it is not valid by that route then a penalty fare may be charged, subject to compliance with all other relevant parts of the regulations.
Prosecutions are generally withdrawn en masse because of extra-legal reasons, such as perceived reputational harm or commercial considerations. We can read nothing into their withdrawal in terms of any concession on a point of law save as may be stated in open court.
The NRCOT do not sit in isolation.
They must be read alongside the Byelaws, all other fares offences under primary statute and the general law.
For the avoidance of doubt, I fundamentally disagree with your position that the NRCOT provide a complete answer on this matter and that they have the absolute effect (in terms of over-riding any applicable criminal offences) which you claim.
For example, if a passenger enters a train in a non-compulsory ticket area and travels using an off peak fare at a time when it is not valid then that would constitute an offence under Byelaw 18(1) unless one or more of the matters in Byelaw 18(3) applies(*). Even if (which I do not accept) NRCOT n. 9.5.1 constrains a TOC’s ability to prosecute that offence, the offence still subsists and can be prosecuted.
* There is an interesting and potentially fruitful discussion to be had in terms of @John Palmer ‘s suggestion that the NRCOT might be construed as permission for the purposes of Byelaw 18(3)(iii). I do not have a firm view on that at the moment.
I have great respect for your clear knowledge and experience in these matters, which is useful to us all.
But passengers are 'ordinary people'. They choose to travel by train for myriad reasons, and they have varying personal standards, just as with anything in life.
Your point, that a passenger reading the clear wording of the NRCoT, doesn't actually have the complete story, is somewhat concerning.
If this is really the state of what passengers are potentially exposed to as a result of the simple act of choosing to travel by train (something surely to be encouraged) something is very badly wrong.
Of course the vast majority of journeys are straightforward, but no passenger can be certain that their particular journey will be so - so it matters.
And something needs to be done about it.
I really hope that this isn't considered controversial.
Obviously I don't hold that view, but going the analogy of those who do: I would add that those who seek to claim that only NRCOT is applicable without interplay with other bye-laws will be forced to come to the conclusion that travelling without a ticket is not an offense either.
Obviously I don't hold that view, but going the analogy of those who do: I would add that those who seek to claim that only NRCOT is applicable without interplay with other bye-laws will be forced to come to the conclusion that travelling without a ticket is not an offense either.
No, because the NRcoT explicitly states the circumstances in which you must have a ticket.
Travelling without a ticket is not an offence in and of itself, of course.
My point is precisely as @John Palmer says - the NRCoT says what *will* happen if you do X Y or Z and what it will cost you, and effectively constitutes permission. I think this is quite plainly obvious to anyone who reads the NRCoT, but other views are available.
I take issue with @tspaul26’s assertion that penalty fares are issued for being on the wrong geographic route. They are not, and when they are done so erroneously, in our experience they are cancelled without exception on appeal. Any RPI will tell you that you can’t PF someone for the three circumstances discussed in this thread and that is precisely because they are only dealt with by way of excess fares with no penalty element.
But depending on how a valid ticket is defined, what is currently seen as "no ticket" will have to be seen in a different light, if applying only NRCoT.
As an example, I could take a Reading to Winnersh for £4.20 (Anytime single) which allows break of journey, then deliberately get on the train to Paddington and get off there. If challenged, I will have committed nothing wrong because I can simply pay the excess for being on the wrong route - as the ticket was otherwise valid for the time.
But depending on how a valid ticket is defined, what is currently seen as "no ticket" will have to be seen in a different light, if applying only NRCoT.
As an example, I could take a Reading to Winnersh for £4.20 (Anytime single) which allows break of journey, then deliberately get on the train to Paddington and get off there. If challenged, I will have committed nothing wrong because I can simply pay the excess for being on the wrong route - as the ticket was otherwise valid for the time.
No you couldn’t. That’s not what being off route means. It has a specific definition of being on a geographically restricted ticket like VIA HIGH WYCOMBE and taking an *otherwise permitted route* with a higher fare. Sorry but this is really basic. In that situation you pay the excess to the appropriate route.
But depending on how a valid ticket is defined, what is currently seen as "no ticket" will have to be seen in a different light, if applying only NRCoT.
As an example, I could take a Reading to Winnersh for £4.20 (Anytime single) which allows break of journey, then deliberately get on the train to Paddington and get off there. If challenged, I will have committed nothing wrong because I can simply pay the excess for being on the wrong route - as the ticket was otherwise valid for the time.
No you couldn’t. That’s not what being off route means. It has a specific definition of being on a geographically restricted ticket like VIA HIGH WYCOMBE and taking an *otherwise permitted route* with a higher fare. Sorry but this is really basic. In that situation you pay the excess to the appropriate route.
Agreed, thats what I am pointing out. It is an invalid route, but if anyone who claims only NRCoT is relevant, then the passenger would be entitled to only pay the excess because 9.5.2 states "are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid". Currently this would be seen as having no ticket at all and potentially PFed.
Quoted from another forum. Whilst I agree that this is a bit different from the usual short fareing & freedom card abuses that we see. I do find it odd that professionals and prospective professionals do not fully understand basic concepts.
Make sure we don't employ him as he is either 1 or 2:
1. He is lazy and stupid.
2. He knows exactly what he was doing.
Agreed, thats what I am pointing out. It is an invalid route, but if anyone who claims only NRCoT is relevant, then the passenger would be entitled to only pay the excess because 9.5.2 states "are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid". Currently this would be seen as having no ticket at all and potentially PFed.
I don't see how that affects the interpretation of 9.5 in circumstances where there is a permitted route?
You're reading 9.5 as if it supports your pre-determined views, rather than reading it as it is actually written. It is true it's written in a surprising way. But then that's true of most the entire document.
I don't see how that affects the interpretation of 9.5 in circumstances where there is a permitted route?
You're reading 9.5 as if it supports your pre-determined views, rather than reading it as it is actually written. It is true it's written in a surprising way. But then that's true of most the entire document.
No, that's inferring from other knowledge and clauses. And it appears that the general stance is that we are to read things as they are written, not as intended or in conjunction with other rules.
Just as "Anytime" means anytime, even if it's a ticket that could not be validly obtained, and any reasonable diligent person would infer that it is for use before 10am based on how other tickets are priced, I don't see why 9.5.2 should be read together with the knowledge that a permitted route exists. There is mention of permitted route in 9.5.2 only a route that is not valid.
For avoidance of doubt, I am not saying this is acceptable or presenting it as something that is the case, I am just highlighting that for those whose stance is that only what is in NRCoT and printed on the ticket applies, without reference to anything else or other facts and intentions, then by that logic, this view should also be true.
Quoted from another forum. Whilst I agree that this is a bit different from the usual short fareing & freedom card abuses that we see. I do find it odd that professionals and prospective professionals do not fully understand basic concepts.
how much wealth do the world-leading geniuses on your forum think is lost by buying tickets online? is he supposed to queue up at the ticket machine and miss his train, and how do they think this is beneficial to the country?
Agreed, thats what I am pointing out. It is an invalid route, but if anyone who claims only NRCoT is relevant, then the passenger would be entitled to only pay the excess because 9.5.2 states "are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid". Currently this would be seen as having no ticket at all and potentially PFed.
No, you’re pointing out that someone with a one stop ticket who travels on some other journey is ticketless. That is correct, they are treated as ticketless, and nothing in the NRCoT says otherwise. Nobody is arguing that the NRCoT exists in isolation either.
No, you’re pointing out that someone with a one stop ticket who travels on some other journey is ticketless. That is correct, they are treated as ticketless, and nothing in the NRCoT says otherwise. Nobody is arguing that the NRCoT exists in isolation either.
The post is more of a challenge to those who insist to place reliance only on NRCOT and what is printed on the ticket, without any other input, to prove me wrong that this is not ticketless. I don't think you are of the view, but there are a good number of members who insist that only NRCOT + print applies, regardless of what is obvious.
We've focussed on the retailers that tell you that you can "travel at any time" without further qualification at the point of sale, making that a term of the contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 section 50 (1)(a) but you might indeed have an argument there that printing "Anytime" on the ticket without further qualification ("on the same occasion") also invokes 50(1)(b) when they read the ticket afterwards.
50
Information about the trader or service to be binding
(1) Every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including as a term of the contract anything that is said or written to the consumer, by or on behalf of the trader, about the trader or the service, if—
(a) it is taken into account by the consumer when deciding to enter into the contract, or
(b) it is taken into account by the consumer when making any decision about the service after entering into the contract.
(2) Anything taken into account by the consumer as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) is subject to—
(a) anything that qualified it and was said or written to the consumer by the trader on the same occasion, and
(b) any change to it that has been expressly agreed between the consumer and the trader (before entering into the contract or later).
No, that's inferring from other knowledge and clauses. And it appears that the general stance is that we are to read things as they are written, not as intended or in conjunction with other rules.
Just as "Anytime" means anytime, even if it's a ticket that could not be validly obtained, and any reasonable diligent person would infer that it is for use before 10am based on how other tickets are priced, I don't see why 9.5.2 should be read together with the knowledge that a permitted route exists. There is mention of permitted route in 9.5.2 only a route that is not valid.
For avoidance of doubt, I am not saying this is acceptable or presenting it as something that is the case, I am just highlighting that for those whose stance is that only what is in NRCoT and printed on the ticket applies, without reference to anything else or other facts and intentions, then by that logic, this view should also be true.
* There is an interesting and potentially fruitful discussion to be had in terms of @John Palmer ‘s suggestion that the NRCOT might be construed as permission for the purposes of Byelaw 18(3)(iii). I do not have a firm view on that at the moment.
I think that is the way it has to be viewed. Condition 9 establishes the intended consequences for travelling without a valid ticket under different scenarios. Where condition 9.2 sets out the default rule, conditions 9.4 and 9.5 are clearly intended as exceptions to this rule, creating situations in which there is not intended to be a penalty.
In a way you could almost say it's immaterial whether that outcome is achieved by deeming a relevant ticket as valid subject to payment of an excess (which has hitherto been my view), or invalid but permissible to excess onboard. Either way, the contractual intention of there being no penalty is clear, and seeing as the NRCoT ultimately determines the validity of the ticket I would suggest its statement of the intended consequences is highly relevant.
That this House notes with concern the targeting by Rail Operators of 16-25 and 26-30 railcard holders who have purchased Anytime Single tickets during peak morning times, unknowingly invalidating their tickets due to a Railcard minimum fare requirement; further notes that despite a £12 minimum fare for Anytime Singles at peak morning times with 16-25 and 26-30 Railcards, this critical information is obscured within the small print, leading to seeming widespread consumer confusion and inadvertent fare evasion; acknowledges that these tickets continue to be listed as available for sale without sufficiently clear warnings about the Railcard fare restrictions; notes with concern that there are people who now have a criminal record for buying an Anytime Single ticket which was not valid before 10am; urges the Government to introduce a role of the Crown Prosecution Service in regulating private prosecutions; and urges the Government to launch an investigation into the clarity and transparency of fare structures and ticketing practices to ensure fair treatment and protection for all rail passengers, particularly vulnerable younger travellers who rely on railcards for affordable travel.
Yep. I would, especially if there was confusion (right or wrong) around the purchasing process and product (ticket) purchased. Seeing someone so concerned, apologetic and offering to pay the difference means I wouldn’t need to take action. All subjective though, fully aware others wouldn’t and it’s a fair point.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
