FCC intention to prosecute - Hertford North to London / Bowes Park split issue

[Roylang]

Could you point me in the direction where on the CoC is defined? I'm looking through it and it doesn't seem to be defined at all, thanks. I would argue that the point to point season isn't a zonal ticket as it not advertised as such (it is a ticket from point A to point B), where a travelcard is (ie a Zones 1-6). The zones themselves being defined on a map or other publications and the tickets being defined by actually stating on the ticket it is zonal.

What is defined? Zonal? If so, Appendix A point (r) on page 21.

It has already been discussed before that Rover tickets are "Zonal" despite not using the words zone or zonal on them. As I said, I know it is not what the NRCoC meant, however, nearly all tickets have a constrained geographic sphere in which they are valid, to my mind strictly meeting the definition of Zonal.

Roy

 

[Monty]

What is defined? Zonal? If so, Appendix A point (r) on page 21.

It has already been discussed before that Rover tickets are "Zonal" despite not using the words zone or zonal on them. As I said, I know it is not what the NRCoC meant, however, nearly all tickets have a constrained geographic sphere in which they are valid, to my mind strictly meeting the definition of Zonal.

Roy

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one, the defination of zonal ticket is described as: "Zonal tickets" are those tickets which permit travel only within a defined area.
An example being "stations A,B & C are in zone 1 your zone. 1-2 ticket is valid at these stations. However your season is valid only valid from station A to station B, but you may break your journey at any station on that route".
With that reasoning in mind there is a difference between a season and zonal ticket.

 

[Perns1972]

Thanks again for your help on here everyone.

This is an incredibly difficult issues to deal with and I appreciate your words of advice and support.

I need to reply to FCC soonish and will run my reply by anyone here who is interested - PM me if you would like to see my response.

Many thanks again.

Matt

 

[Roylang]

However your season is valid only valid from station A to station B, but you may break your journey at any station on that route.

I do not think that is entirely correct, the NRCoC state:

"You may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) at any intermediate station, as long as the ticket you hold is valid for the trains you want to use."

Therefore, surely the season ticket is valid from Station A to Station B and between any two station enroute using any route permitted by Condition 13(a)?

Roy

 

[Wolfie]

I need to point out that we have debated the status of London Travelcards on several occasions and that 34D's opinion that Transport for London is either a passenger transport executive or a local authority is disputed.

My own view is that Transport for London is neither a passenger transport executive nor a local authority, and therefore that this line of argument would be unhelpful to you.

I will try to edit this post later to add links to previous debates on the subject.

This is an interesting question. I assume that you accept that the Greater London Authority (GLA) is a local authority (because the Government does, see: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/Localcouncils/DG_4003596
and this is status is confirmed within the legislation which set up the GLA - see the link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/part/II/crossheading/general-local-authority-provisions ).

Transport for London is a statutory body created by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and effectively seems to be an executive agency of GLA. Whether such a body is either legally a local authority in its own right or takes the legal status of its parent is unclear BUT given that TfL gets its right to set byelaws as a result of the Local Government Act 1972 (see Section 166 of the GLA Act 1999) there might rather be a suggestion that the answer is yes.
.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just had a chat with a friend about the legal status of TfL, apparently it's a nationalised company and can operate its own services. A PTE by law cannot, so TfL is not a PTE.

I'm on my mobile now, but when I get home I'll see if I can get some citation on this.

WRONG! But based I think on a misunderstanding. Until the mid-1980s the PTEs operated bus services in their areas, but bus deregulation by the Transport Act 1985 forced the sale of such bus fleets to private operators.

Most PTEs do not operate public transport services. However, there are limited number of cases where they do - the Tyne and Wear PTE operates the Tyne and Wear Metro, and Strathclyde Passenger Transport operates the Glasgow Subway. In Merseyside, Strathclyde and Tyne and Wear, some ferry services are operated by the PTEs.

 

[Roylang]

This is an interesting question. I assume that you accept that the Greater London Authority (GLA) is a local authority (because the Government does, see: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/Localcouncils/DG_4003596
and this is status is confirmed within the legislation which set up the GLA - see the link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/part/II/crossheading/general-local-authority-provisions ).

Transport for London is a statutory body created by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and effectively seems to be an executive agency of GLA. Whether such a body is either legally a local authority in its own right or takes the legal status of its parent is unclear BUT given that TfL gets its right to set byelaws as a result of the Local Government Act 1972 (see Section 166 of the GLA Act 1999) there might rather be a suggestion that the answer is yes.

I do not read the links that you provide that way. Indeed the legislation that you link almost confirms that the GLA is not a local authority:

"the Authority shall be treated as if it were a local authority"

i.e. although it is not a local authority it will be treated as if it is. That does not mean that for the purposes of the NRCoC it is. The GLA is a "super authority" covering many local authorities.

Roy

 

[Wolfie]

I do not read the links that you provide that way. Indeed the legislation that you link almost confirms that the GLA is not a local authority:

From the Direct Giv link:

Local authorities in Greater London, including the Greater London Authority, the London Boroughs and the City of London.


i.e. although it is not a local authority it will be treated as if it is. That does not mean that for the purposes of the NRCoC it is. The GLA is a "super authority" covering many local authorities.

The role of the GLA is strategic. Its legislative underpinning is the GLA Act and the Local Government Act. For the NRCoC to try and argue it is not a local authority would be mind-boggling and almost certainly, since NRCoC sets out the contract with the consumer, would lead to questions over use of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation.
Roy

.....

 

[Roylang]

That is my point, it is being treated as a local authority but from the legislation is not actually one. It is the legislation that counts.

Roy

 

[142094]

Tyne and Wear PTE operates the Tyne and Wear Metro

This was true until 2 years ago, whereby Nexus (Tyne and Wear PTE) own the stations, infrastructure and rolling stock but the actual service is operated by DB Regio Tyne and Wear Ltd.

 

[Daz28]

That is my point, it is being treated as a local authority but from the legislation is not actually one. It is the legislation that counts.

You have made some very selective quoting in order to make this assertion, and have completely missed the context. The purpose of the quoted legislation is to amend the 1972 Local Government Act to add the GLA as a local authority. there is no doubt having read through the whole document that the GLA is a local authority.

Your selective quote actually read:

(1)For the purposes of the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 specified in subsection (2) below, the Authority shall be treated as if it were a local authority which is a principal council and the Mayor shall be treated as if he were the chairman of such an authority.

Ie the GLA is a Local Authority of the type "principal council" and the mayor is equivalent to the chairman.

 

[Roylang]

You have made some very selective quoting in order to make this assertion, and have completely missed the context. The purpose of the quoted legislation is to amend the 1972 Local Government Act to add the GLA as a local authority. there is no doubt having read through the whole document that the GLA is a local authority.

Your selective quote actually read:



Ie the GLA is a Local Authority of the type "principal council" and the mayor is equivalent to the chairman.

Unless the legal framework that is being used here is different to the one in which I have to write legislation, you are missing the relevance of "...as if it were..." which means that it should be treated as one, even though it is not.

I quoted the relevant part, the extra part that you included just adds to the role that it will be treated as, even though it is not, and was therefore of no relevance in my opinion.

Roy

 

[transmanche]

Ie the GLA is a Local Authority of the type "principal council" and the mayor is equivalent to the chairman.

I'm not sure why the status of the GLA would be relevant.

The status of TfL is clear:

Greater London Authority Act 1999, schedule 10, section 9(1):
Transport for London shall be treated as a local authority for the 1972 c. 70. purposes of the following provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for discharge of functions of a local authority by joint committees with other local authorities)

Thus TfL is not a local authority, but is treated as if it were one for one specific purpose.

However, whilst the legal status of the GLA and TfL may be of interest as an academic exercise, I don't think that's going to help the OP in this case.

 

[Roylang]

I'm not sure why the status of the GLA would be relevant.

The status of TfL is clear:


Thus TfL is not a local authority, but is treated as if it were one for one specific purpose.

However, whilst the legal status of the GLA and TfL may be of interest as an academic exercise, I don't think that's going to help the OP in this case.

Exactly, the fact that it is "treated as one" means that it is not. . Had TfL been a Legal Authority this could have helped the OP as he would then have met the condition 19 (1) requirements. Therefore, the only help available now for the OP with regards to the status of TfL would be if it was a PTE, which sadly, it seems not to be.

Such confusion is why in one of my earlier posts I said that people should read exactly what legal text says, not what they think it says which I am afraid is a mistake that some of the posters in this discussion are making. Reading the precise wording of contracts, Ts & Cs etc. can sometimes throw up interesting benefits.

Roy

 

[jon0844]

Hi there,

As someone who was affected by this too, having long lost the paperwork I had from Wagn, I did indeed change my ticket to go from a Hatfield > Hadley Wood and a Z1-6 Travelcard to a Hatfield to Z456 and a Z123 Travelcard (with both being zonal tickets, I didn't have the problem with a train stopping anywhere).

It did cost a little more but I wasn't going to risk a prosecution, although ironically it was the correct ticket combination that landed me with the threat of prosecution when it was deeemed that two tickets covering zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 didn't apply if split as there was a 'gap' between Zones 3 and 4! And for the benefit of the OP, that was incorrect and the claim quickly dropped.

Even if I had located the original letter (I carried a photocopy) that said it was acceptable to combine the two tickets I originally had, it was from Wagn which lost the franchise in April 2006. Although FCC didn't change things for some time, at some point (most likely during one of the many major staff changes) someone came along and just enforced the rules as is - perhaps having no knowledge of any easement.

FCC is fully entitled to do it, and nobody is left there that would know (the MD having left to East Coast and now off again to National Express, and when I emailed her she said she couldn't remember either way) so I think the only defence will be based around the fact that one ticket was valid at the point of being 'caught', or the fact you were sold the ticket combination every year AND never got in any bother during that time.

They'll have records of you buying the tickets if they were annual seasons, and they'll also know if you had any PFs. At the very least, they should consider letting you off as a goodwill gesture with you giving an assurance that you will either only use trains that stop at the splitting point or change your ticket to a valid combination.

I think writing to the MD might help here, as my email to head office saw my prosecution cancelled before the paperwork had even been handed in - so I never had to go through the ordeal of trying to argue my case (even though I was 100% in the right).

I wasn't even saving money by doing my split - in fact, it was the opposite. I split merely to get the use of Oyster in London. Going from Z1-6 to Z1-3 (and a paper ticket for the rest) was a pain because I occasionally touched out in Z4-6 and got charged, when I had a valid season in my wallet.

Was your Travelcard a paper ticket or on Oyster? If the latter, you could argue that you only use that combination for the convenience, because the industry hasn't extended Oyster to your originating station. However, if you did have Oyster and a separate paper ticket, then you presumably didn't buy them at the same time/place? That might impact on the argument that you were sold the tickets without being warned that you'd need to only use certain trains.

 

[Perns1972]

Thanks for your help with this - this is the first time anything like this has ever happened to me, it's all a bit of a nightmare.

Thank you again for your help.

 

[jon0844]

I doubt anyone, even FCC, consider it a genuine attempt to evade anything but they're incredibly proactive with taking people to court at the moment.

My personal thought is that they're actively seeking out of court settlements for large sums of money, netting them far more money than a simple PF.

I wonder how many people who offer an out of course settlement are refused? If FCC is accepting nearly all of them (is there any way to find out?) then it would confirm that they're after the money and not the actual deterrent of a possible criminal record where applicable.

I hope this is sorted out as it's easier to make it clear that your ticket isn't valid but no obvious fraud was suspected and it can be solved by replacing your ticket (at your expense) which isn't particularly hard to do.

If you haven't already changed your ticket, I would suggest you do. FCC is in the right in this case, even though I don't think a prosecution is just.

Good luck!

 

[Perns1972]

Thanks Jon.

I won't change my ticket yet, I might do when I need to renew and thanks to contributors for the options provided - the Palmers Green combination sounds good.

For now I'll just travel on trains that stop at Bowes Park. They're slower, but I don't run the risk of getting in trouble with ticket inspectors.

 

[34D]

FCC is fully entitled to do it

I don't actually agree with you here. If an annual season is sold with the benefit of an oral (or implied) term on 1st Jan 2010, then the contract has been set, and neither party can unilaterally change their mind come 2nd Jan 2010. Similarly, if a passenger 'renews' then any changes to established T&Cs (especially because the passenger believes they are renewing on the same terms) ought to be highlighted.

I wasn't even saving money by doing my split - in fact, it was the opposite. I split merely to get the use of Oyster in London.

Off-topic, but I don't understand why you would want to do that, when a paper 1-3 (or 1-6) travelcard can do everything a z1-3 oyster can do. (If were talking a z1-6 oyster there is the slight advantage of journeys to the new zones beyond 6 (watford junction, grays, zone 9, etc).

 

[yorkie]

I don't actually agree with you here. If an annual season is sold with the benefit of an oral (or implied) term on 1st Jan 2010, then the contract has been set, and neither party can unilaterally change their mind. Similarly, if a passenger 'renews' then any changes to established T&Cs (especially because the passenger believes they are renewing on the same terms) ought to be highlighted.

From a customer service & moral argument, I agree with you absolutely 100%.

But from a legal perspective, I am not at all qualified to say, other than to say I would not at all be confident in making that assertion.

Off-topic, but I don't understand why you would want to do that, when a paper 1-3 (or 1-6) travelcard can do everything a z1-3 oyster can do.

No, it doesn't.

Advantages of a Travelcard being held on Oyster (rather than on a paper ticket) include:-

• Less likely for the ticket to become damaged, or worn and consequently avoiding inconvenience of obtaining a replacement
• Greater protection in the event of the ticket being lost/stolen
• Cheaper fares & greater convenience when extending the Travelcard beyond the area of validity

(admittedly the last bullet point is not applicable to the combination in question, but is applicable to the simple choice of whether or not to get one Travelcard on Oyster)

 

[MikeWh]

I think a crucial point here is that on their own, the combination of tickets splitting at Bowes Park is perfectly valid. The only problem is when you decide to use it on a train not calling at Bowes Park. Is the ticket seller supposed to know that the tickets would be used on non-stop services? I guess that as it's possible to do it then perhaps they should alert the passenger, but do you do that every year? I'm not defending FCCs decision to stop offering the easement without publicising it properly, although I do wonder how it has taken so long for this particular passenger to be found out.

Given that we know WAGN allowed the easement and that it's quite possible that there are still passengers un-knowingly using it, perhaps London TravelWatch ought to be involved in forcing FCC to retrospectively publish the change in stance?

 

[jon0844]

Off-topic, but I don't understand why you would want to do that, when a paper 1-3 (or 1-6) travelcard can do everything a z1-3 oyster can do. (If were talking a z1-6 oyster there is the slight advantage of journeys to the new zones beyond 6 (watford junction, grays, zone 9, etc).

Oyster is more convenient. I hate paper tickets, and having to change them. I was willing to do a split to be able to use paper only at one end of my journey, and never in and around London. You might have noticed me mentioning smartcards as the future once or twice on here.*

My Z1-6 Oyster was just fine, but forced me ultimately to take slow trains stopping at Hadley Wood, so I changed to Z123 & Z456 which was okay until I forgot what zone I was in and touched out with the Oyster, being charged from Z3 to wherever I was. Only did it a couple of times, so it's no big deal - but I'd clearly have preferred to have one Travelcard, or indeed just one ticket entirely (and on a smartcard).

I know people might think I'm mad!

As for whether I could have challenged FCCs decision to suddenly enforce a rule they were always entitled to do, I have no idea - nor did I fancy being the one to take it to court. I was never told that I could or couldn't travel on a train that didn't stop at Hadley Wood when renewing my season (and that's because I was buying one at Hatfield or King's Cross, and the Oyster from King's Cross (Tube ticket office)) so besides the lost letter, from a company that no longer run the franchise, it was my word against theirs.

I would have almost certainly lost, unless other regular passengers still have their letter (for some time, there were many regulars that carried this letter AND one to give permission to sit in first class on a declassified service - a letter that FCC has willingly given to people, and confirmed repeatedly on their forum).

I just changed the ticket in the end as it wasn't worth the hassle, especially thanks to certain RPIs.

* Even more off topic: I chatted to a guy from Cubic the other day, who said the roll out of smartcards to Hatfield might not happen until TfL seek to take over the inner suburban route! I know it's always been a rumour, as well as people like me assuming it will happen as it simply makes sense (especially if the Moorgate branch suddenly splits from the Thameslink project and otherwise becomes part of East Coast!), but here was someone working on the gateline hardware/software speaking as if they've been told it something a little more concrete.

 

[Perns1972]

Hello again.

This is a related question to my ongoing case with FCC.

Tomorrow I need to travel to Enfield chase .....would I be able to do his, and safely exit he station, on my Hertford north to Bowes park return ticket?

I'd hate to get in trouble again, there's only so much energy you can devote to these battles eh?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Ps I'll be sending off my response FCC intention to prosecute letter on Thursday morning. If anyone has any advice, do drop me a pm.

 

[MikeWh]

Tomorrow I need to travel to Enfield chase .....would I be able to do his, and safely exit he station, on my Hertford north to Bowes park return ticket?

I assume that this is a season ticket between Hertford North and Bowes Park, so yes, you can make any intermediate journey between those two stations. The gates may not operate at other stops, but just show your ticket to the staff and you will be let through.

 

[Perns1972]

Good news - I spoke to the head of prosecutions at FCC and no further action will be taken on my case, I'm delighted and relieved in equal measure but in no doubt that FCC have made the right decision.

I'll post a full summary of events when I get a moment, but for now, many thanks to everyone here for your expert advice, industry insights and support.

 

[MikeWh]

Excellent. Thanks for letting us know.

 

[jon0844]

Great news - and shows that besides the revenue section, there are still some good people left working at FCC!

Have they told you to change the ticket, or make sure you don't make the same mistake again by only using the 'correct' services?

 

[34D]

Given that we know WAGN allowed the easement and that it's quite possible that there are still passengers un-knowingly using it, perhaps London TravelWatch ought to be involved in forcing FCC to retrospectively publish the change in stance?

In maybe early 2009, there were posters on their trains telling passengers using more than one season that the train must stop.

 

[jon0844]

There were? I never saw them.

Perhaps that is when FCC changed their mind, but are you sure it wasn't just one poster hidden in a corner somewhere (like when a newspaper issues a correction or apology?).

 

[Ferret]

Good news - I spoke to the head of prosecutions at FCC and no further action will be taken on my case, I'm delighted and relieved in equal measure but in no doubt that FCC have made the right decision.

I'll post a full summary of events when I get a moment, but for now, many thanks to everyone here for your expert advice, industry insights and support.

Excellent, I'm pleased they've dropped this, as it's clear you weren't really intending to evade your fare. I guess FCC's Head of Prosecutions is due a pat on the back here for making a good decision.