Group Saver query

[yorkie]

Hi,

I took the tickets back in the end and have got a refund on them. Luckily I managed to get some Advance tickets which were only £5 more.

Thanks for your assistance.

That's a shame A victory for the TOCs over the passenger But your choice.

If anyone would like to challenge this ridiculous situation, please PM me. I am sure Watchdog will be interested.

We really need some test cases...

 

[mumrar]

How is that a victory for the TOCs over the passenger. What would you have preferred to happen? Typeo could hardly have caught the train and pleaded ignorance in the hope of TIR and zero-fare process being followed, as they were well aware of the ticket's validity/restrictions from this thread.

Your desire for test cases in a court system already stretched to breaking point with crime, fraud etc I hardly see you getting the time you crave at the bench.

What would be a victory for the passengers would be for the tickets to either be widely accepted, or for the issuing staff to either full explain and/or not sell them to people wishing to use services excluded from GroupSave.

 

[Ferret]

Well, if Thatcham had provided an itinerary or a ressie involving an XC train then I don't see what else the TM could do, other than withdraw them and do a TIR. I kinda wish that's what had happened so Thatcham ticket office received a well-deserved rollocking for retailing invalid tickets! Maybe I'll get lucky at some point in the near future

As regards Yorkie's point, on what grounds would a legal challenge be likely to succeed? Groupsave is a product retailed by certain TOCs, of which XC is not one. Never in a million years will you get a Judge to force XC to accept the tickets.
Like Mumrar says, what is needed is sufficient training for retail staff - they have access to the information and if it comes right down to it, if they repeatedly issue incorrect tickts having been made aware of their error, then they should face the appropriate Poor Performance sanctions.

 

[yorkie]

How is that a victory for the TOCs over the passenger.

A more restrictive ticket, costing more money. What else would you call that?

What would you have preferred to happen? Typeo could hardly have caught the train and pleaded ignorance in the hope of TIR and zero-fare process being followed, as they were well aware of the ticket's validity/restrictions from this thread.

Hmm, basically you are saying that if someone reads this forum then they are at a disadvantage compared to someone who hasn't, in this circumstance? I can't see a guard questioning someone "Do you read the RailUK ticket section? You do? Ah well you must be aware of the restriction." You know the correct action is for the guard to charge FGW, not the customer, and you know that XC would get awful publicity if they charged someone when they were in possession of a reservation issued by the Railway for using their reservation.

Your desire for test cases in a court system already stretched to breaking point with crime, fraud etc I hardly see you getting the time you crave at the bench.

It wouldn't go to court and you know it. You know what the possible outcomes are, and you know that some of them would rather damage the reputation of certain companies/organisations.

What would be a victory for the passengers would be for the tickets to either be widely accepted,

That would be a victory, yes. And backing down isn't a way to achieve it.

or for the issuing staff to either full explain and/or not sell them to people wishing to use services excluded from GroupSave.

That would not be a victory for passengers, but it would be a victory for XC guards who would not have to re-issue tickets to customers and submit a report for their company to claim the cash off FGW.

Well, if Thatcham had provided an itinerary or a ressie involving an XC train then I don't see what else the TM could do, other than withdraw them and do a TIR. I kinda wish that's what had happened so Thatcham ticket office received a well-deserved rollocking for retailing invalid tickets! Maybe I'll get lucky at some point in the near future

Exactly, and I also wish that happened, although there would have been the chance that the XC guard makes the same mistake that the one embers25 encountered, in which case we'd have some material for Watchdog, which may actually bring about real change.

As regards Yorkie's point, on what grounds would a legal challenge be likely to succeed? Groupsave is a product retailed by certain TOCs, of which XC is not one. Never in a million years will you get a Judge to force XC to accept the tickets.

If it went to court, I do not believe "in a million years" a judge will fine the customer if they refuse to pay, in the unlikely event of XC taking them to court for refusing to pay.

Like Mumrar says, what is needed is sufficient training for retail staff - they have access to the information and if it comes right down to it, if they repeatedly issue incorrect tickts having been made aware of their error, then they should face the appropriate Poor Performance sanctions.

I agree there should be sufficient training for retail staff (and more mystery shoppers etc) however in the case of GroupSave, you and I both know what is needed for that specific issue!

 

[Ferret]

Exactly, and I also wish that happened, although there would have been the chance that the XC guard makes the same mistake that the one embers25 encountered, in which case we'd have some material for Watchdog, which may actually bring about real change.

If you're presented with a seat reservation with an invalid ticket then it really is end of argument - there is only one course of action you can take, as I've outlined!

If it went to court, I do not believe "in a million years" a judge will fine the customer if they refuse to pay, in the unlikely event of XC taking them to court for refusing to pay.

Hmmm, he may have no choice. Strict liability offence and all that. But, it shouldn't go to Court unless the railway can demonstrate the customer was told about the Groupsave restriction - which SWT now do.

I agree there should be sufficient training for retail staff (and more mystery shoppers etc) however in the case of GroupSave, you and I both know what is needed for that specific issue!

Even if it said 'Not XC' on the ticket, you'd *still* get people travelling on them. It's amazing how many Virgin Trains Only tickets I find, not to mention East Coast Only. Harumph!

 

[Mojo]

Hmmm, he may have no choice. Strict liability offence and all that. But, it shouldn't go to Court unless the railway can demonstrate the customer was told about the Groupsave restriction - which SWT now do.

You have said this a few times before, but can I ask where it comes from as I'm trying to get to the bottom of it?

I'm not doubting your sources at all, especially they are likely to be more up to date if you work with the revenue and security team at XC, but the DfT website says that prosecutions for fare evasion are carried out under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 ("Before penalty fares were introduced, the only way to deter people from travelling without a ticket was to prosecute them under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889"), and the CPS website says that it would expect prosecutions under the same Act (although this does not mean anything really). This Google search also reveals many results from forums and other pages with people and Tocs posting that they are being prosecuted/carrying out prosecutions under the 1889 Act (which does require intent).

Saying that, having read the Byelaws I cannot see any technical reason why prosecutions under fare evasion could not take place under them. Perhaps it's taken the railways several decades to realise they can, or there is another reason hidden in some other legislation somewhere which says they cannot.

Rules governing penalty fares and byelaws on London Underground are different to those on the Tocs, but the 1889 Act also applies to fare evasion.

Fare evasion on London Underground is contrary to the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, and the London Regional Transport Railways Byelaws (LRT Byelaws).

This is the same as on the Tocs (except obviously the railway's own Byelaws apply and not the TfL ones.

In addition, TfL will prosecute the following offences (cut down to remove fraud, etc offences for which we are not concerned with).

(a) Fare evasion in contravention of the Regulations of Railways Act 1889
(b) Contraventions of the London Regional Transport Railways Byelaws

I am not sure if this means that they only prosecute fare evasion under the 1889 Act, and that other non ticketing Byelaw contraventions will be prosecuted under the Byelaws. Even if so, there must be a reason why the they would bother to use the 1889 Act at all, given a prosecution under it is harder than a byelaw one.

 

[Ferret]

Mojo, I have very little involvement with this side, and can only go on what I've been told by the RPIs who have attended Court to see the result of their labours! I guess they're the best people to ask though as they're the ones who keep whacking in the MG11s/TIRs.