Excessing Railcard Discounted Tickets Used at an Invalid Time

[dm1]

Frankly this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.

If 'the railway' is capable of selling a ticket with a railcard discount, it should be capable of displaying that said ticket is only valid at the times where the railcard discount is valid. How that is implemented in the back end systems should not be the customer's concern, and being caught out in this way and being prosecuted for a ticket which clearly states that it is valid at any time is absolutely ludicrous, regardless of what is written in the small print.

Even further, if a customer ends up on a train with such a ticket and gets checked, being prosecuted and potentially ending up with a criminal record is entirely disproportionate, particularly assuming they have a ticket from the origin to the destination. An excess to the undiscounted fare (potentially with a £10 admin fee) would be reasonable. A small penalty fare (up to e.g. £20) could be argued for, but prosecution and fines in the hundreds of pounds is simply not proportionate. I would argue the same for excessing advance tickets as well.

A law degree and several hours of regularly reading (constantly changing) T&Cs and small print should not be a prerequisite for using the railways without being prosecuted. There are ways to manage fare irregularities in signficantly stricter ways without being disproportionate. For example, a centralised penalty fare database in which successive fare irregularities within a certain period come with increasing penalties, with prosecution (for fraud) coming after a certain number of strikes and handled by the CPS would be one option.

In any case, the onus should be on the railway to (re-)design its ticketing structures and retail systems in such a way that the rules are absolutely clear for everyone involved and that honest mistakes never result in prosecution. If that means that some revenue is lost due to fraud being misidentifed as an honest mistake, then so be it, but the reverse should just not be happening.

 

[AdamWW]

Frankly this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.

...

A law degree and several hours of regularly reading (constantly changing) T&Cs and small print should not be a prerequisite for using the railways without being prosecuted. There are ways to manage fare irregularities in signficantly stricter ways without being disproportionate. For example, a centralised penalty fare database in which successive fare irregularities within a certain period come with increasing penalties, with prosecution (for fraud) coming after a certain number of strikes and handled by the CPS would be one option.

I think it's worse than that.

I cannot see how the layman reading the T&Cs could come to the same conclusion as the railway. (And if someone with legal knowledge can point out how the railway is in the right here I'd be most interested - and surprised).

The 16-25 railcard R&Cs say:
"The 16-25 Railcard has a minimum fare that applies from 04.30 and 10.00 Monday to Friday. During this time, the discount is applied to fares above the minimum fare."

They are completely silent on what situation exists if a ticket at a price affected by the minimum fare is used too early. There is no phrasing to suggest that such a ticket is fundamentally invalid.

So we must look to the NRCoT (which the railcard T&Cs say override anything in the railcard conditions) or the law.

I do not believe that the law even recognises such things as railcards (happy to be corrected - but it's not readily accessible to a passenger in any case).

Nothing in the NRCoT specifically mentioning railcards seem to be valid.
The closest would be:
"8.5 If you are travelling with a Railcard discounted Ticket and are unable to present the Railcard when asked by the staff or authorised agents of a Train Company, you will be treated as having joined a train without a valid Ticket and Conditions 9.1 – 9.5 will apply."

But clearly even that isn't relevant.

But we do have:
"9.5 Where you:
9.5.1 are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an “off-peak” or “super-off-peak” Ticket) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling
....
you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using."

On the face of it this would seem to apply. In this case the passenger does indeed have a ticket which is "correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling" and "such as an "off-peak"" clearly means this term isn't restricted to such tickets.

So the railway has to argue that there is something else that overrides it. But what? Nothing, so far as I can see.

The best I can guess is that 8.5 is being taken to mean that any irregularity with a railcard discount means that a ticket is fundamentally invalid. But that's not what it says.

So I can't see what grounds there are for the railway's view, but even if they are correct I do not see how someone could reasonably be able to know that even if they diligently read the T&Cs.

And even if this wasn't the case, I don't see how a prosecution could be legitimate when a ticket is sold as valid at any time (and it seem that even the official description of an anytime ticket leaves out the possibility of invalidity due to railcard minimum fares).

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that it is common for the railway to penalise someone for picking the wrong railcard when it has the same discount as the one they hold. I think that says it all.

As for the suggestion [earlier in this thread] that picking a later train than the one you intend to catch for a ticket described as having no time restrictions could be an offence under the fraud act... If that's the case, then presumably if I buy a ticket online intending to legitimately stop short to save money I'm committing fraud. (Maybe I shouldn't give the railway ideas).

(And...off topic but to address your final point.....we seem to have sleep-walked into a world where the railway can and does investigate past irregularities and will punish each one at a level that was previously justified on the grounds that a single offence is unlikely to have happened in isolation and thus a penalty wildly disproportionate to that one offence is justified).

 

[redreni]

Moderator Note = split from:

Reported for using Railcard discount before 10am

Hoping somebody can provide some thoughts around the below story. I'm confused and would appreciate any feedback. My son has just started studying at Uni. He is using the the rail service for the first time to commute. He was not aware that he could not use his 16-25 railcard before 10am (his...

www.railforums.co.uk

This tends to be seen as a deliberate attempt at fare evasion.

The rationale is that Trainline presents you with a series of train times and prices, all on the same screen, one after the other, for you to make your selection from . In cases where the fares are low and do not meet the £12 minimum fare threshold , the ones after 10:00 a.m. are cheaper and the ones before 10:00 a.m. are more expensive because they do not have the railcard discount applied.

Whether or not you are aware of the minimum fare, it is clear to the purchaser that the trains after 10:00 a.m. are cheaper and the ones before 10:00 a.m. are more expensive.

Therefore, picking a cheaper ticket for a train time after 10:00 a.m. and travelling before 10:00 a.m. is seen as a deliberate decision on the part of the purchaser.

Now I know this is subject to debate - However, this is the logic that is generally applied here.

Yeah but the problem is some online retailers present all kinds of ridiculous results. Just for example - and this sort of thing is not uncommon - the attached relates to a return journey from Waterbeach to Blackfriars and says it's an extra £6.15 if you want to change at Kings Cross - St Pancras. It appears not to know about the fixed link and tries to sell you a Travelcard. The only way to pay the right fare on that website is to pick a train you've no intention of travelling on.

I know it's a slightly different situation, but I am extremely sceptical about the idea that choosing one train from the list and then deciding to travel on a different one, when it's a flexible ticket, constitutes significant evidence of dishonesty.

The number of times I've seen the fares experts having to explain to people positing questions about fares that when the ticket restriction says not before 09:30, that doesn't mean after 09:30 is necessarily okay as the Railcard may have its own time restrictions which you're expected to remember. It may seem obvious to those who know, but it is not intuitive.

For an industry that seems to have people working in it who dream of automating everything, storing everybody's personal data and using facial recognition to charge everybody whatever fare the Railway thinks they ought to pay, it does seem a bit feeble to say it would be technically too difficult to display the ticket restrictions and Railcard restrictions side-by-side for the customer to see when they purchase a ticket online (or at least when they have purchased it).

Any good ticket office clerk would tell a customer buying a Railcard-discounted ticket about any restrictions on the use of the ticket - they wouldn't tell them the ticket restrictions but not the (often superseding) Railcard conditions. Why do we hold online retailers to a lower standard?

Given the above, I tend very much towards the view that unless there's evidence of a systematic attempt to defraud the railway, this sort of thing falls to be dealt with by way of an excess fare only. If there are concerns that this would expose TOCs to revenue loss, fix online retailing so that it is made clear to the passenger what the restrictions are when they buy the ticket, and then it would be reasonable to deal more harshly with anyone not following the rules.



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

The terms and conditions worked well at a time when all tickets were purchased via an interaction with a human.

This is only all too clear during any revenue check, as the majority of ticket irregularities would not have occurred had the ticket been purchased from a member of staff.

I don't think that the rules and regulations have updated to keep pace with the changes to the ticket buying habits, and too much responsibility is placed upon the consumer.

That said, however, the majority of consumers seem to be able to purchase their tickets and abide within the rules of the tickets that they carry. There does seem to be on this forum, a feeling that the majority of ticket irregularities occur due to a genuine mistake - but I can tell you from my own experience on the ground ( and I recognise that this is only my opinion) - that the majority of ticket irregularities occur not due to a genuine mistake, but more from the natural desire on the part of the consumer to save a bit of cash, but also not realising the potential consequences of their actions in relation to the specific laws on the railway.

Speaking only for myself, I don't think that. I just don't think it's okay to prosecute 100 people just because the majority of them may deserve it.

Everything that can reasonably be done to make sure wrongful prosecutions don't occur, should be done. Telling customers the ticket restrictions at the point of purchase (though not always especially clearly) but not reminding them of the Railcard restrictions (in fact not telling them the Railcard restrictions at all, just putting them in T&Cs) doesn't meet that standard imho.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

If the boot was on the other foot and someone was underpaying you, would you worry about their feelings before taking action to get your money?

Funnily enough I was underpaid a few years ago - I did a secondment on temporary promotion and was underpaid by nearly £2K. What do you suppose I did?

1. Pointed it out to them and asked them to pay me what they owed me, or
2. Launched a criminal prosecution?

 

[Haywain]

Funnily enough I was underpaid a few years ago - I did a secondment on temporary promotion and was underpaid by nearly £2K. What do you suppose I did?

1. Pointed it out to them and asked them to pay me what they owed me, or
2. Launched a criminal prosecution?

As you were not in a position to bring a criminal prosecution for a civil matter, I imagine you chose option 1 but I suspect that in doing so you didn't worry about anyone's feelings.

As an aside, having been in a similar situation, it has been pointed out to me that a secondment is regarded as a development opportunity and doesn't lead to a higher rate of pay. I have no idea how many businesses might take that view though.

 

[SLC001]

Is this the instance referred to here? Measly words by the TOC imho but this is how the law works and sometimes the law is an ass.

Man faces legal action by Northern over £1.90 rail ticket error

A man who mistakenly bought an invalid ticket is threatened with court by rail firm, Northern.

www.bbc.co.uk

A man who paid £1.90 less than he should have for a train ticket faces being taken to court by a rail firm despite admitting his error and offering to pay a fine or a new fare.

Sam Williamson, 22, from Glossop, has been threatened with prosecution by Northern after he mistakenly bought an invalid £3.65 ticket from Broadbottom to Manchester using his railcard on Saturday.

He said the "tiny infraction", which was an "innocent mistake", could land him with a huge fine and a criminal record.

A spokesman for Northern said everyone had "a duty to buy a valid ticket" before they board the train, and added that 96 per cent of customers "do just that".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

If I can add, I worked in financial services and the FCA make their own rules up. It is often resented but more often by those who have something to worry about or by those who are paranoid about big brother organisations. In reality, the rules are designed to protect consumers against unfair sales practices, poor documentation and unreasonable terms and conditions. In other words, in the FCA world you cannot rely on T&Cs however well they may be drawn up if they breach the FCA rules - now lumped under Consumer Duty. It is regrettable that TOCs (and other companies tbf), are not subject to the same rules which the unfettered FCA deem to be reasonable, fair to the consumer and protects them against badly presented advertisements, terms and conditions and charges.
If this Government is going to do anything positive about our railway system, it could do no worse than simplifying fares taking into account passengers ability to interact and this would of course include there age and health.

 

[methecooldude]

Nothing in the NRCoT specifically mentioning railcards seem to be valid.

8.2 The Railcard may have additional restrictions which will apply to any Tickets you buy when using it.

 

[AdamWW]

8.2 The Railcard may have additional restrictions which will apply to any Tickets you buy when using it.

Yes, it says that.

I don't see how that implies that 9.5.1 doesn't apply.

In fact it strongly supports it, by making it clear that the railcard restrictions "apply to [the] ticket" rather than saying something like "When tickets are purchased with a railcard, additional restrictions may apply"

Not much scope there I think for the argument that the ticket is valid but the railcard isn't.
(Which in my book is in any case somewhat ridiculous)

 

[methecooldude]

Yes, it says that.

I don't see how that implies that 9.5.1 doesn't apply.

In fact it strongly supports it, by making it clear that the railcard restrictions "apply to [the] ticket" rather than saying something like "When tickets are purchased with a railcard, additional restrictions may apply"

Not much scope there I think for the argument that the ticket is valid but the railcard isn't.
(Which in my book is in any case somewhat ridiculous)

The NRCoT give definitions to terms:

“Ticket” means any physical or electronic document or record which entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail Network between the stations or within the zones indicated by one or more of the Train Companies. An electronic document or record may consist of (but not be limited to):
a Smartcard (including an Oyster or ITSO card);
a payment card or identity card;
a mobile telephone or tablet device;
other mobile electronic device; or
a database, in conjunction with an authorised Contactless Bank Card bearing the symbol described in the notices and publications of the Train Company as being valid for travel on their services.

(https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e...3/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Travel_2024.pdf - Page 32)
9.5.1 uses the term "Ticket" as described above. The Ticket was NOT time-restricted, the railcard was. Therefore 9.5.1 doesn't apply.

 

[AdamWW]

The NRCoT give definitions to terms:

(https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e...3/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Travel_2024.pdf - Page 32)
9.5.1 uses the term "Ticket" as described above. The Ticket was NOT time-restricted, the railcard was. Therefore 9.5.1 doesn't apply.

This seems a very strange line of argument to me.

A ticket purchased with a railcard has no validity without the railcard. Therefore what you are calling a ticket cannot be so under the definition you have just quoted as when used alone it does not entitle a passenger to make a journey.
It only becomes so when used in conjunction with a railcard.

So in the eyes of the NRCoT the "ticket" must include the railcard and thus any restrictions that it imposes.

In any case this thread is (or at least was) about the 16-25 railcard which is not time restricted. It just has a minimum discount at some times. It depends on the ticket price so you can't dissociate the two.

Curiously, the Network Railcard (which does have a blanket time restriction) has T&Cs saying that if you use it at the wrong time you may have to either pay the difference to a full fare or pay a penalty fare.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Is this the instance referred to here? Measly words by the TOC imho but this is how the law works and sometimes the law is an ass.

Man faces legal action by Northern over £1.90 rail ticket error

A man who mistakenly bought an invalid ticket is threatened with court by rail firm, Northern.

www.bbc.co.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

If I can add, I worked in financial services and the FCA make their own rules up. It is often resented but more often by those who have something to worry about or by those who are paranoid about big brother organisations. In reality, the rules are designed to protect consumers against unfair sales practices, poor documentation and unreasonable terms and conditions. In other words, in the FCA world you cannot rely on T&Cs however well they may be drawn up if they breach the FCA rules - now lumped under Consumer Duty. It is regrettable that TOCs (and other companies tbf), are not subject to the same rules which the unfettered FCA deem to be reasonable, fair to the consumer and protects them against badly presented advertisements, terms and conditions and charges.
If this Government is going to do anything positive about our railway system, it could do no worse than simplifying fares taking into account passengers ability to interact and this would of course include there age and health.

Not sure if that is the original case being discussed here but seems very similar and it has clearly got some traction as various journalists have been in touch today about it!

I have pointed them to this thread, if nothing else it highlights that if a straightforward railcard journey can generate this much discussion between rail ticketing experts then the rules probably aren’t clear enough, especially when criminal sanctions are applied to those who fall foul.

 

[plymothian]

I'll just point out that this forum's own ticket system doesn't warn about not using a non-mimimum fare applied Anytime tickets before 10am.

 

[Cuthbert]

I'll just point out that this forum's own ticket system doesn't warn about not using a non-mimimum fare applied Anytime tickets before 10am.

This is true. But when you try to buy a ticket before 1000 it automatically gives you the non railcard option and shows times. ALso when hovering over the ticket it will mention restrictions may apply.

 

[Tedb]

Aware it’s not in T&Cs, but the GWR passenger charter conflicts with other messaging when it comes to Invalid tickets (attached image). No reference to prosecution.

My son made a mistake, didn’t realise there were 10am restrictions (below £12).

I’ve also attached the Trainline options that my son saw and the reverse of the ticket he purchased which says it is flexible and railcards are OK to use. I’ve not attached the front of the ticket as aware the barcode could be scanned and there is a data risk. The front confirms the journey, date, railcard and anytime element.

You’ll see that at point of purchase it says ‘anytime’ and that’s with his railcard applied to the purchase (it’s a later date due to us checking again) Yes, it is after 10am, he should have realised, but at the very least all of this is confusing…as pointed out earlier in the thread, there are lots of comments which probably backs up my assumption

 

[bunnahabhain]

This is true. But when you try to buy a ticket before 1000 it automatically gives you the non railcard option and shows times. ALso when hovering over the ticket it will mention restrictions may apply.

That's what all of the self service systems appear to do. The only ability to obtain the full discount is by selecting a journey after 10am. The information has been provided to the user when they purchased the railcard, they've ticked a box to say they've understood it, so they've deliberately selected a train knowing full well they're travelling before 10am. Its very easy to suggest everybody "caught out" is an "innocent victim".

Apps make people think they're the expert in the room.

 

[Snex]

Just been following this thread through and thought I'd give it a go on the Northern ticket site because that's who the issue is with. Personally, I can't see how this is enforceable at all. The ticket conditions of an invalid ticket, literally, and there's dispute about it, is, 'Flexible ticket with no time restrictions on when you can travel.' with a mention you must bring a railcard.

With 2 other points saying the exact same thing.

I can't possibly see how anyone can be prosecuted, if bought through the Northern site. That message should be, 'Tickets only valid after 10am when using this railcard.' Saying I clicked the wrong ticket isn't a point, maybe I decided to change my mind and catch an earlier train because I fancied a McDonald's breakfast before work, or whatever, with my 'flexible ticket with no time restrictions on when you can travel'.

Images displayed below:

 

[BongoStar]

Just been following this thread through and thought I'd give a go on the Northern ticket site because that's who the issue is with. Personally, I can't see how this is enforceable at all. The ticket conditions of an invalid ticket, literally, and there's dispute about it, is, 'Flexible ticket with no time restrictions on when you can travel.' with a mention you must bring a railcard.

With 2 other points saying the exact same thing.

I can't possibly see how anyone can be prosecuted, if bought through the Northern site. That message should be, 'Tickets only valid after 10am when using this railcard.'

Images displayed below:

View attachment 167107

In the first image, where you have underlined "Travel anytime of the day", doesn't it clearly mention "eligible train". Does that not alert anyone that there are ineligible trains as well? Infact, they point that out first before the anytime part.

 

[redreni]

That's what all of the self service systems appear to do. The only ability to obtain the full discount is by selecting a journey after 10am. The information has been provided to the user when they purchased the railcard, they've ticked a box to say they've understood it, so they've deliberately selected a train knowing full well they're travelling before 10am. Its very easy to suggest everybody "caught out" is an "innocent victim".

Apps make people think they're the expert in the room.

Some probably have, but we don't know that in any particular case. Isn't the point of buying an Anytime ticket that you reserve the right to change your mind?

Also, what evidence do we have that the customer even looked at the pre-10am options when buying the ticket? Most journey planners default to the current time, so if you buy the ticket the previous afternoon and you know you want an Anytime ticket, why would you even bother changing this? Why not just select the correct date, select any train (likely a mid-afternoon train as that's what you'll see if you don't fiddle with the time option) and then use the ticket at any time? Isn't the clue in the name "Anytime"?

You have to know more than most people know about ticketing to realise that you might not be able to do this.

 

[AdamWW]

In the first image, where you have underlined "Travel anytime of the day", doesn't it clearly mention "eligible train". Does that not alert anyone that there are ineligible trains as well? Infact, they point that out first before the anytime part.

You're joking, right?

If it menions eligible trains and also that there are no time restrictions, then clearly eligibility has nothing to do with time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2024 ==

Some probably have, but we don't know that in any particular case. Isn't the point of buying an Anytime ticket that you reserve the right to change your mind?

Also, what evidence do we have that the customer even looked at the pre-10am options when buying the ticket? Most journey planners default to the current time, so if you buy the ticket the previous afternoon and you know you want an Anytime ticket, why would you even bother changing this? Why not just select the correct date, select any train (likely a mid-afternoon train as that's what you'll see if you don't fiddle with the time option) and then use the ticket at any time? Isn't the clue in the name "Anytime"?

You have to know more than most people know about ticketing to realise that you might not be able to do this.

And, for me, for an on the day booking the trainline on the web defaults to the first journey after 10 even if it's hours away.

[Edited because I can't spell...]

 

[redreni]

In the first image, where you have underlined "Travel anytime of the day", doesn't it clearly mention "eligible train". Does that not alert anyone that there are ineligible trains as well? Infact, they point that out first before the anytime part.

No.

 

[Snex]

In the first image, where you have underlined "Travel anytime of the day", doesn't it clearly mention "eligible train". Does that not alert anyone that there are ineligible trains as well? Infact, they point that out first before the anytime part.

Personally I'd say the travel anytime of the day would be the eligible trains. I'm not sure how you can say you can 'travel anytime of the day', then when you get on board decide you can't 'travel anytime of the day.' That has to override any existing terms imo.

 

[AdamWW]

In the first image, where you have underlined "Travel anytime of the day", doesn't it clearly mention "eligible train". Does that not alert anyone that there are ineligible trains as well? Infact, they point that out first before the anytime part.

Also note that it says "travel any time of day", against a ticket purchased with a railcard discount.

No mention there of the word "ticket" so again any attempt to argue that the passenger should be aware that the ticket is valid but the railcard isn't fails.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2024 ==

Personally I'd say the travel anytime of the day would be the eligible trains. I'm not sure how you can say you can 'travel anytime of the day', then when you get on board decide you can't 'travel anytime of the day.' That has to override any existing terms imo.

Of course. I think most of us here can see this. I'm really quite curious about the motivations of people arguing otherwise.

The arguments presented here defending the railway do rather seem like clutching at straws.

"Eligibility" presumably refers to permitted routes (including train company restrictions where applicable) and I bet it appears for non railcard tickets too.

Oh - and going back to the screen shot of the Northern ticket site - somewhat misleading when it says that if you don't carry your railcard you'll have to buy a new full fare. No mention on the one hand that you can reclaim that fare once a year, but on the other hand no mention of being issued a penalty fare or prosecuted.

Should you prosecute someone for something you've said in plain English will carry a lesser penalty?

It's a shame that the railway can't come anywhere near the level of attention to detail it requires passengers to achieve in order to avoid a criminal record.

 

[Snex]

Of course. I think most of us here can see this. I'm really quite curious about the motivations of people arguing otherwise.

The arguments presented here defending the railway do rather seem like clutching at straws.

"Eligibility" presumably refers to permitted routes (including train company restrictions where applicable) and I bet it appears for non railcard tickets too.

Oh - and going back to the screen shot of the Northern ticket site - somewhat misleading when it says that if you don't carry your railcard you'll have to buy a new full fare. No mention on the one hand that you can reclaim that fare once a year, but on the other hand no mention of being issued a penalty fare or prosecuted.

Should you prosecute someone for something you've said in plain English will carry a lesser penalty?

It's a shame that the railway can't come anywhere near the level of attention to detail it requires passengers to achieve in order to avoid a criminal record.

Yeah totally agreed, just checked btw and it appears for all tickets which I assumed it would do.

I'm not sure how well it would stack up in court, but surely any ticket which is valid all day would make the railcard element irrelevant anyway. Obviously this is hypothetical but if the railcard terms were actually 10:00am to 10:05am being the only valid times and the other 23 hours+ a day they're invalid on any anytime ticket which says in multiple spots the ticket is valid any time, I'm not sure that would go far. Just because the times are more favourable, I'm not sure why it should make a difference, it's the same principal at the end of the day, especially when it's applicable to that railcard. At no point does anywhere in the ticket conditions does it mention any railcard restrictions.

 

[LowLevel]

Some probably have, but we don't know that in any particular case. Isn't the point of buying an Anytime ticket that you reserve the right to change your mind?

Also, what evidence do we have that the customer even looked at the pre-10am options when buying the ticket? Most journey planners default to the current time, so if you buy the ticket the previous afternoon and you know you want an Anytime ticket, why would you even bother changing this? Why not just select the correct date, select any train (likely a mid-afternoon train as that's what you'll see if you don't fiddle with the time option) and then use the ticket at any time? Isn't the clue in the name "Anytime"?

You have to know more than most people know about ticketing to realise that you might not be able to do this.

Generally with e-tickets it's reasonably easy to make a bit of a judgement call on this kind of thing.

My usual way of approaching it as an inspector is as follows:

A week or two into September - explain that the price difference for an anytime ticket isn't a bug in the app before/after 10am, explain the rules regarding minimum fare and particularly July and August and take some action to resolve validity - whether by making an extra charge (but no penalty or report) or issuing an endorsement if I think that's appropriate. Usually this results in some anguished faces particularly when the railcard was purchased in July or whatever and they realise that it might be useless for their commute which is what they bought it for.

Also explain on routes where they're available about advance fares where they *can* get a discount provided they don't mind tying themselves to trains if cost is an important factor.

A modern factor these days is people who move from 16-17 savers to 16-25 railcards having turned 18 over the holidays who don't realise the rules are different.

This takes up my time quite considerably but for that time frame I don't tend to mind.

The rest of the time I tend to look at the purchase time. If it's fairly close to departure time (IE within an hour or two) and they've clearly ignored the train they're travelling on imminently to book one in 3 hours time after 10am when they're travelling at 7 because they've just scrolled through the list and picked the cheapest time (why would you ignore a charge for your specific train to pick one that just happens to be the first over the threshold for a cheaper fare) I charge for a new ticket with an explanation of why. If it's a regular face doing it who I've seen before then the explanation is more pointed and I make reference to reporting them.

If they booked them in advance and might have been mislead by anytime my approach is softened. I'd still never file a TIR but the action depends on what they say in each circumstance.

It's not a perfect approach but it's worked for me over many years and I don't get many complaints about it.

A glut of prosecutions from travel in the first week of September for this reason makes me feel rather uneasy and I would suggest is not in accordance with what I would call natural justice even if they're technically correct.

 

[AdamWW]

Yeah totally agreed, just checked btw and it appears for all tickets which I assumed it would do.

I'm not sure how well it would stack up in court, but surely any ticket which is valid all day would make the railcard element irrelevant anyway. Obviously this is hypothetical but if the railcard terms were actually 10:00am to 10:05am being the only valid times and the other 23 hours+ a day they're invalid on any anytime ticket which says in multiple spots the ticket is valid any time, I'm not sure that would go far. Just because the times are more favourable, I'm not sure why it should make a difference, it's the same principal at the end of the day, especially when it's applicable to that railcard. At no point does anywhere in the ticket conditions does it mention any railcard restrictions.

The problem of course is that there are no guarantees what would happen if it went to court so for many people the least worst action is just to bribe the company not to prosecute. (Deliberately unreasonable choice of words here.....)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2024 ==

Generally with e-tickets it's reasonably easy to make a bit of a judgement call on this kind of thing.

My usual way of approaching it as an inspector is as follows:

Thanks for that detailed explanation, and it's good to know that there's common sense on the ground.

I'd just comment that regarding:

they've just scrolled through the list and picked the cheapest time (why would you ignore a charge for your specific train to pick one that just happens to be the first over the threshold for a cheaper fare)

in some cases the Trainline helpfully does that for you.

And (I realise this is controversial) I do think it's possible that someone just assumes it's a bug. If I can buy a ticket for the 10:30 train that says it's valid all day, there must be something wrong with the prices coming up for the earlier ones. And most of us are famliar with buggy apps.

It's not as if people on this forum don't sometimes suggest similar legitimate workarounds (e.g. can't buy a ticket online for the next train because it's running late, so just get one for the train after).

Though I appreciate that at some point you have to make a judgement and I imagine the majority of people doing this are doing something they know they shouldn't.

 

[redreni]

A glut of prosecutions from travel in the first week of September for this reason makes me feel rather uneasy and I would suggest is not in accordance with what I would call natural justice even if they're technically correct.

That's a big if.

Your approach sounds much more proportionate. Although you may be interested in post 108; they haven't necessarily ignored or scrolled past the train they wish to take to find a cheaper one, they may have simply chosen the first train offered thinking it doesn't matter as the ticket can be used at any time.

 

[BongoStar]

All this ignores the fact that a railcard user has made an informed choice to apply it.

Had there been only 1 type of railcard, I can see the point that a consumer treats it like a discount/loyalty card (like having Clubcard prices) and have a valid expectation that the ticket purchased with the railcard should be no different in terms of usage with a ticket without the discount.

However, given there are various types of railcards and when purchasing them, the user would have weighed the pros and cons of some of them before selecting the most beneficial to them, I fail to see where the argument that the schemes are misleading come from.

I, for example, have both a network railcard and a F&F. Many years back, I had a network and two together. I would weigh up the discount offered from each card based on the trip I and my fellow travellers were making and select the most beneficial one for the journey.

To say that a 16 year old went through all the trouble to prove their age (which is a step not required for network card) to get a card that gives more discount than others and then claim they didn't understand the terms and conditions of it makes me wonder whether they even know ew what they were getting in the first place. And that is no failure on part of ToCs.

 

[Krokodil]

My usual way of approaching it as an inspector is as follows:...

Personally I ask them to go back to the itinerary and then ask:
"can you tell me why you booked on the 10:30 when you are travelling on the 7:30?"

Usually the response is: "it was cheaper".

To which I reply: "if it is cheaper at 10:30 then it is cheaper at 10:30"

The ticket gets flagged "16-25 used before 10am" in order that persistent offenders can be identified. Then I charge anew or sometimes just excess

 

[Snex]

The problem of course is that there are no guarantees what would happen if it went to court so for many people the least worst action is just to bribe the company not to prosecute. (Deliberately unreasonable choice of words here.....)

Yeah agreed, be interesting to see if someone ever does go for it as could leave a right mess behind.

That's a big if.

Your approach sounds much more proportionate. Although you may be interested in post 108; they haven't necessarily ignored or scrolled past the train they wish to take to find a cheaper one, they may have simply chosen the first train offered thinking it doesn't matter as the ticket can be used at any time.

Would it even matter? If the argument is you're selecting a 2:00pm train which says I can use it on any train of the day, surely the 'fare' would be still the 2:00pm train, you're just using it early if going down that route. The railcard is valid on that 2:00pm train, that 2:00pm train ticket is valid on the 8:00am train. I don't have and never did have an 8:00am train ticket.

Obviously going with that argument in court is extremely risky as if it backfires it's the equivilant of jumping out of a plane without a parachute.

 

[redreni]

Personally I ask them to go back to the itinerary and then ask:
"can you tell me why you booked on the 10:30 when you are travelling on the 7:30?"

Usually the response is: "it was cheaper".

To which I reply: "if it is cheaper at 10:30 then it is cheaper at 10:30"

The ticket gets flagged "16-25 used before 10am" in order that persistent offenders can be identified. Then I charge anew or sometimes just excess

Well, this is interesting, so you consider you have discretion to apply or not apply NRCoT 9.5.1?

Surely it either applies in cases like this or it doesn't?

Or are you saying it doesn't apply, but you have a general discretion to charge an excess instead of a new ticket (or PF, or irregularity report, or whatever else)?

 

[Krokodil]

All this ignores the fact that a railcard user has made an informed choice to apply it.

Hmm. How many people read T&Cs before clicking "accept"?

Ultimately the whole system is too complicated. I'd rather not have to enforce petty rules, I'd rather get on with selling tickets to people willing to buy them (and I am pleased when I get someone a good deal, a little old lady travelling to Leeds for her grandson's graduation, departing before 9am might have been charged £127 but I got that down to £75) and stinging those who are taking the mick.