Guardian: "Penalised train passengers fight ticketing rules"

[MarkyMarkD]

I agree, andy. Oswyn's insurance suggestion is just over-complicating matters. As I said a few posts ago, if you want flexibility, pay for a flexible ticket. If you don't, then live with the conditions.

The TOCs shouldn't change their way of doing business just to stop ill-informed people moaning to the newspapers. The same issue arises in many different businesses. I work in banking and the press (and forums) is constantly full of ill-informed drivel about how awful banks are, and how anything they do which involves making a few pence profit is "profiteering". Well - d'oh - banks are businesses! As are the TOCs.

 

[transmanche]

The TOCs shouldn't change their way of doing business just to stop ill-informed people moaning to the newspapers.

That's not a very customer-focused approach though is it? Businesses which provide services need to flex to customer demand in order to survive. Arrogant businesses which work on the 'our way or the highway' principle, will suffer in the long term.

Even the budget airlines realise this. EasyJet offer an option which allows you to pay a £50 fee if you miss your flight and travel on a later service, rather than a simple 'pay full price'.

A good example of this sort of flexibility in the railway industry is Southern's 'Rainy Day Guarantee'.

 

[SS4]

There are some customers that it's not worth the trouble to keep - how many of these are simultaneously complaining about the coach, the car, the plane, the boat?

 

[GadgetMan]

Rail passengers threatened with fines and even prosecution by train guards – despite buying a ticket – have called on the rail passenger watchdog to challenge their legality amid growing consumer anger.

So far it has ruled out a legal challenge.

Why? Probably because they know they wouldn't win.

He said he opposed a legal challenge but didn't rule out an appeal to the rail regulator adding: "This is a battle we will win."

If that's the case then battle away.





Using common sense and showing discretion is fine, but then this leads to a false sense of security to some passengers who then feel they should be shown the same discretion the next time they balls up.

It is very common to hear passengers with invalid tickets say, well the last time the guard was really nice and they let me off. You should be more like that person rather than a jobsworth. This just shows it's usually a minority of people who repeatedly keep falling foul of the rules.

There is a balance to be struck, and at the moment I don't think the system is too unfair to passengers. If you want flexibility then you need to purchase an appropriate ticket.

If we are going to start excessing Advance tickets after their first train has been missed then what's the cut off point going to be? 1 hour from the time of departure, 2 hours, 3 hours, days? What then stops someone using a Advance ticket one day and it not being stamped, then making the same journey the next day wanting to pay an excess to the walk up fare?

Campaigners do just that, campaign. Even if they get their way, they won't be satisfied, the very next day they'll find something else to cry about.


As to 'the man on the platform said', the simple solution to that is for any relaxing of rules by an authorised person to be included as an endorsement on the ticket or a separate note. All staff should be told to provide any rule bending in writing, and passengers should be educated to expect nothing less to cover their back.

 

[SS4]

Why? Probably because they know they wouldn't win.

If that's the case then battle away.


Using common sense and showing discretion is fine, but then this leads to a false sense of security to some passengers who then feel they should be shown the same discretion the next time they balls up.

It is very common to hear passengers with invalid tickets say, well the last time the guard was really nice and they let me off. You should be more like that person rather than a jobsworth. This just shows it's usually a minority of people who repeatedly keep falling foul of the rules.

There is a balance to be struck, and at the moment I don't think the system is too unfair to passengers. If you want flexibility then you need to purchase an appropriate ticket.

If we are going to start excessing Advance tickets after their first train has been missed then what's the cut off point going to be? 1 hour from the time of departure, 2 hours, 3 hours, days? What then stops someone using a Advance ticket one day and it not being stamped, then making the same journey the next day wanting to pay an excess to the walk up fare?

Campaigners do just that, campaign. Even if they get their way, they won't be satisfied, the very next day they'll find something else to cry about.


As to 'the man on the platform said', the simple solution to that is for any relaxing of rules by an authorised person to be included as an endorsement on the ticket or a separate note. All staff should be told to provide any rule bending in writing, and passengers should be educated to expect nothing less to cover their back.

Well said.
If I may just quote this paragraph to give further attention to

If we are going to start excessing Advance tickets after their first train has been missed then what's the cut off point going to be? 1 hour from the time of departure, 2 hours, 3 hours, days? What then stops someone using a Advance ticket one day and it not being stamped, then making the same journey the next day wanting to pay an excess to the walk up fare?

I agree. A tier of Advance+ would be interesting (i.e. this train and 1 train either side of it) although the reservation would be valid only on the original.
As soon as refunds are given you'll get people snapping up all the advance tickets and essentially having a walk up ticket with being able to refund all their other advances - an administration fee will only be effective if the cost of all tickets after refund is less than a walk up

 

[RPM]

The key to all this is to protect revenue and discourage fraudulent travel without throwing out the baby with the bathwater and criminalizing honest passengers who have either made a genuine mistake or have fruitlessly sought the means to buy a ticket to no avail.
It seems the general direction we are moving in as an industry is towards a narrowing of walk-on ticket buying facilities coupled with a zero-tolerance policy on ticketless travel. This has to be addressed, not only in regard to straightforward fairness, but also in order to rescue the industry from a massive PR own-goal. Sadly the McNumpty proposals are directing the railway ever further up this frankly suicidal blind alley.

It really is time the railway realised that it has a responsibilty to collect fares rather than expecting its customers to have a knowledge of its complex fares and restrictions and woe betide anyone who gets it wrong.

We have bylaws on the railway that are massively empowering, but with those bylaws comes a responsibilty to use those powers wisely.

 

[MarkyMarkD]

That's not a very customer-focused approach though is it? Businesses which provide services need to flex to customer demand in order to survive. Arrogant businesses which work on the 'our way or the highway' principle, will suffer in the long term.

Even the budget airlines realise this. EasyJet offer an option which allows you to pay a £50 fee if you miss your flight and travel on a later service, rather than a simple 'pay full price'.

A good example of this sort of flexibility in the railway industry is Southern's 'Rainy Day Guarantee'.

Souther's RDG is a great feature and there is little reason why their competitors don't offer it, for walk-up fares. It doesn't help the Advance situation, though.

The Easyjet £50 upgrade fee is interesting, as is the proposal (in a later post) for an "Advance+" ticket price which allows flexibility +/- one train either way. I can see many people being prepared to pay that extra amount - but a proportion of those customers are those who would currently buy (at their employer's expense, normally) a flexible ticket, and it will still leave those who only wish to pay the cheapest fare level and then complain when they miss their booked train!

I take issue, once again, with RPM's comment

It seems the general direction we are moving in as an industry is towards a narrowing of walk-on ticket buying facilities

as I don't see any restriction of walk-on ticket options, in the slightest. The issue, surely, is that the price of walk-on ticket options is more than most passengers wish to pay? Which isn't exactly the same thing.

 

[AndyLandy]

I think the point I was trying to get at was that having an Advance be wholly worthless if you miss the train is a bit brutal. But there's a large area between that and face-value trade-up. If you charge an "Excess fee" for trading up an advance, you're then offering your screwed up customers a way out, without encouraging people to buy Advances as a "deposit" on a walk-on fare.

 

[SS4]

The missing vital point that in the eyes of the press the railway can do no right. It'll always be a PR own-goal regardless of what they do.

There really isn't anything all that complicated about ticketing for the average passenger; online sites will (should) not sell a ticket which isn't valid for the journey the passenger wants to make, booking offices will ask for the time of travel and either sell a valid ticket for said time or advise the passenger when it's valid. Both will make clear that Advance tickets are valid only with reservation and only valid on the train specified on the reservation coupon (and possibly an itinerary)

Heaven forbid someone actually reads, or at least have an idea of, the terms and conditions before buying their ticket.

The second you start offering refunds on advance tickets you'll see them being snapped up by passengers who want a spread, effectively hedging their bets and refunding the ones they don't use. When excesses are allowed much the same thing will happen

Let's say that advances are £6 each way (so £12 total) and an off-peak return costs £45 and there are 3tph. Our passenger knows he wishes to travel about 1pm but not the exact time and return about 8pm. He can buy advances out on the 1240, 1300 and 1320 and back on the 1940, 2000 and 2020 and pay £36 - a saving of £9.

 

[RPM]

I take issue, once again, with RPM's comment as I don't see any restriction of walk-on ticket options, in the slightest.

You are unaware then of London Midland's plans to reduce ticket office opening hours and completely close several ticket offices? This is unquestionably a restriction of walk-on ticket options. And before someone mentions TVMs - sorry but they just don't cut the mustard.

 

[island]

The missing vital point that in the eyes of the press the railway can do no right. It'll always be a PR own-goal regardless of what they do.

Exactly right. Simply put, if the flexibility suggested by several people above were to come into effect, the TOCs would have to increase the ticket prices in order to maintain revenue at the same levels. Cue Daily Fail "CHEAPEST RAIL TICKETS INCREASE 200%; FAMILIES WANT A CHEAP DAY OUT NOT FLEXIBILITY".

 

[MarkyMarkD]

You are unaware then of London Midland's plans to reduce ticket office opening hours and completely close several ticket offices? This is unquestionably a restriction of walk-on ticket options. And before someone mentions TVMs - sorry but they just don't cut the mustard.

For the purpose of this thread, "walk-on" has been used to mean "flexible", not actually to refer to whether the ticket is bought immediately before travel rather than in advance.

I agree, of course, that either the full range of tickets should be available from a ticket office, or from a TVM, or from a guard on the train if not from the first two sources.

I don't agree that TVMs are inherently inadequate, but most of those currently available do offer a restricted set of tickets and don't adequately explain the options available in the way that a human being could.

 

[neilmc]

I catch planes a fair bit and appreciate the concept that I have to be at the airport in good time because chances are if I miss the plane there won't be another that day or maybe even for the week, so you factor in silly amounts of time to spend at the airport, which is exactly what everyone concerned with the aviation industry wants.

But for an advance train ticket to have no value whatsoever on a service when there will (usually) be a half-empty train running twenty minutes behind the one I missed is just bad, totally unnecessary and easily perceived as fraudulent marketing, similarly the stipulation that I can't get off before my destination without paying a full standard fare single in lieu of my advance deal. OK so the public should be more savvy but remember these deals are heavily marketed so many people will think they in fact are the "standard" fare outside of business hours, and we're not dealing with fraudsters but people who did buy a ticket in good faith.

The TOCs could stand firm and say "no refunds" and let the media vilify them even more but why expect passengers to lie down and accept these stupid and vindictive conditions when the Daily Mail or consumer websites can make the TOCs grovel, and get them their money back?

 

[bluenoxid]

Why don't the operators print the conditions/restrictions for each ticket with the ticket.

With the era of E Ticketing, why can passengers not be given a code for their ticket, which allows them to present their ticket in whatever format they so choose (such as fingerprint or code or ID)

 

[Greenback]

I catch planes a fair bit and appreciate the concept that I have to be at the airport in good time because chances are if I miss the plane there won't be another that day or maybe even for the week, so you factor in silly amounts of time to spend at the airport, which is exactly what everyone concerned with the aviation industry wants.

In other words, the consequences of missing the flight are too serious not to turn up in plenty of time. But potentially the consequences of missing a booked train can be financially serious as well, which is why most people allow plenty of time before embarking on long distance Advance ticketed journeys.

But for an advance train ticket to have no value whatsoever on a service when there will (usually) be a half-empty train running twenty minutes behind the one I missed is just bad, totally unnecessary and easily perceived as fraudulent marketing,

Please explain how it is fraudulent to offer a highly restricted product at a (usually) discounted cost compared to a product with less restrictive conditions.

It has also been explained that the consequnces of allowing excesses on Advance tickets would fundamentally change the economics of these tickets.

similarly the stipulation that I can't get off before my destination without paying a full standard fare single in lieu of my advance deal.

Those are the terms of the ticket, but it is debatable how enforceable this is and there are many different variables that come into play.

OK so the public should be more savvy but remember these deals are heavily marketed so many people will think they in fact are the "standard" fare outside of business hours, and we're not dealing with fraudsters but people who did buy a ticket in good faith.

I would not begin to argue that the ticketing system is faultless, it is very complicated for staff and customers. However, when buying an Advance ticket is very difficult to avoid the terms and conditions and phrases such as 'valid on booked train only'.

The TOCs could stand firm and say "no refunds" and let the media vilify them even more but why expect passengers to lie down and accept these stupid and vindictive conditions when the Daily Mail or consumer websites can make the TOCs grovel, and get them their money back?

There is a difference between showing flexibility in the interests of customer service, and offering refunds as a matter of course. TOC's do give refunds without any media involvement, but it usually depends on the particular circumstances.

Frankly, this post reveals that some people do not adhere to the T&C's of Advance tickets because they have the notion that as there will be other trains running the passenger should not be tied to one particular service regardless of what ticket is actually held.

These sort of arguments do not help the cause of genuine passengers who have made an honest mistake at all. The media is often unable to differentiate between those who don't believe that the rules apply to them, and those that are merely the victims of unusual circumstances. In fairness, it is often hard to judge, as any member of train crew will agree.

 

[SS4]

Why don't the operators print the conditions/restrictions for each ticket with the ticket.

With the era of E Ticketing, why can passengers not be given a code for their ticket, which allows them to present their ticket in whatever format they so choose (such as fingerprint or code or ID)

You'd need a reference sample. I for one do not want my fingerprints in the hands of NR or (A)TOC. ID is already a requirement but I am concerned that a move to E-ticketing will push costs up for those unwilling or unable to carry ID on them.
Also I'd hazard a guess that the vast amount of tickets are still paper tickets picked up at the station. Providing a PDF file at the point of sale is by far the most efficient method of doing it for online purchases and having the restriction codes available on demand and stations is efficient.

There is a difference between showing flexibility in the interests of customer service, and offering refunds as a matter of course. TOC's do give refunds without any media involvement, but it usually depends on the particular circumstances.

Frankly, this post reveals that some people do not adhere to the T&C's of Advance tickets because they have the notion that as there will be other trains running the passenger should not be tied to one particular service regardless of what ticket is actually held.

Most of these people are the kind who want to have their cake and eat it. As long as the numbers are relatively low the railways doesn't need them - it costs the TOC far more in publicity, investigation and dealing with it then they'd ever get off the customer. I understand it goes against the notion of customer service so try the phrase cutting one's losses

These sort of arguments do not help the cause of genuine passengers who have made an honest mistake at all. The media is often unable to differentiate between those who don't believe that the rules apply to them, and those that are merely the victims of unusual circumstances. In fairness, it is often hard to judge, as any member of train crew will agree.

They're not helped by passengers (and occasionally staff) and their deliberate campaign of misinformation and concealment of any truth that may implicate them. Look at how children are portrayed in the papers - it is very rare that someone (especially under 12) are portrayed with any negative qualities.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I catch planes a fair bit and appreciate the concept that I have to be at the airport in good time because chances are if I miss the plane there won't be another that day or maybe even for the week, so you factor in silly amounts of time to spend at the airport, which is exactly what everyone concerned with the aviation industry wants.

Strange, I thought customers were being encouraged to leave when there was winter related disruption and to check before travelling. There is also check-in, passport control, bagging check and so on - the only way rail travel is comparable to air travel is in pricing structure.

But for an advance train ticket to have no value whatsoever on a service when there will (usually) be a half-empty train running twenty minutes behind the one I missed is just bad, totally unnecessary and easily perceived as fraudulent marketing, similarly the stipulation that I can't get off before my destination without paying a full standard fare single in lieu of my advance deal. OK so the public should be more savvy but remember these deals are heavily marketed so many people will think they in fact are the "standard" fare outside of business hours, and we're not dealing with fraudsters but people who did buy a ticket in good faith.

Fraud? Is that by false representation, failing to disclose information or abuse of position? Ever heard of the saying "if something appears too good to be true it probably is?"

The TOCs could stand firm and say "no refunds" and let the media vilify them even more but why expect passengers to lie down and accept these stupid and vindictive conditions when the Daily Mail or consumer websites can make the TOCs grovel, and get them their money back?

The T&Cs they agreed to when purchasing their ticket? I wonder how much information the fare-dodger [by definition since one's treated as boarding without a ticket] withholds when complaining to the media? Many of these complainants are not needed on the railway, there are plenty willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the ticket they bought

 

[island]

But for an advance train ticket to have no value whatsoever on a service when there will (usually) be a half-empty train running twenty minutes behind the one I missed is just bad, totally unnecessary and easily perceived as fraudulent marketing, similarly the stipulation that I can't get off before my destination without paying a full standard fare single in lieu of my advance deal. OK so the public should be more savvy but remember these deals are heavily marketed so many people will think they in fact are the "standard" fare outside of business hours, and we're not dealing with fraudsters but people who did buy a ticket in good faith.

Aer Lingus runs hourly service between Dublin and Heathrow but will still charge €75 if you're late for your flight. Do you think it should let people travel on the next plane at no fee too?

However, this is not even very relevant. The reason cheap tickets are offered is because of price discrimination. Whether it's convenient or not to let the person on the next train is neither here nor there. If the customer wants flexibility, he can pay for a walk-up ticket.

 

[6Gman]

Most people are used to the idea of advance air tickets not being refundable unless you pay an absolute fortune, hotel rooms are starting to do the same on the internet, so I don't think it's too much to ask for most people to realise that the cheapest tickets have conditions attached.

.

Spot on. I had a couple of days in London last week. I paid £90 a night to stay on a fully-flexible booking, as there was a possibility I'd need to cancel at a late stage. I could have paid £60 for a discounted room (same hotel, same room) but would have lost the £120 had I'd had to cancel.

So why should rail travel be any different?

 

[telstarbox]

Every single time I've bought an Advance ticket online I've had to tick a box saying something like "I accept the National Rail Conditions of Carriage". Although I haven't read the conditions in full I know what I'm getting into when I buy an Advance and if I got into trouble regarding validity etc because of something I hadn't bothered to read, it would be only my fault, not that of the TOC (unless they were interpreting the rules incorrectly but that's another topic).

It's the same when you buy nearly anything online - you have to tick a box saying you accept the T&Cs which are usually available to view in a popup window. I don't always read them before I sign up (even though I should) and I'm sure many others have done the same, but if you don't read what you're signing then you haven't really got a leg to stand on!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also just noticed that one of the comments refers at length to this forum!

 

[Blindtraveler]

i dont normally get into debates on tickets etc as although I know more than my mates Im no expert by any means and am shown up regularly by other forum members. First, a cupple of personal views. Ideally walkup flexible tickets would be cheeper making discounting surplus to requirements. 2. Agree with RPM Tiket machines dont cut it and leed to trubble.
I would go as far as to say get rid for anything other than timetable and journey planning and que busting on short commuter runs but anyway.

My bugbair with advances is that many who buy them e.g. Mums with small kids, pentioners, other types of leisure traveler are not regular urers and in many but not all cases are in the mindset of a ticket gets you on any train and some staff are not great at explaining otherwise, a soblem that is at its worst with telesales centres.
These people are in my experience treated very badly with a letting off being acceptional although I know many are just told not to do it again and almost certainly dont!
In short I think its just too hard to fathem for many and flexibilitty is needed to a point but maybe not too much.

 

[Ivo]

Also just noticed that one of the comments refers at length to this forum!

Yes. Only for a reply (http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/16204767) to then criticise us

 

[ntg]

I don't know how Amtrak make it work if it's so impossible in the UK. Much, much cheaper fares, and going on their website to read there terms of transportation makes the UK system look like the utter farce it is.

 

[sheff1]

Every single time I've bought an Advance ticket online I've had to tick a box saying something like "I accept the National Rail Conditions of Carriage". Although I haven't read the conditions in full I know what I'm getting into when I buy an Advance and if I got into trouble regarding validity etc because of something I hadn't bothered to read, it would be only my fault, not that of the TOC (unless they were interpreting the rules incorrectly but that's another topic).

And that is the topic Passenger Focus should be concentrating on - TOCs not complying with the NRCoC.

 

[Flamingo]

I do think that threads like this (and articles like the Guardians) present a very good case for the railways getting rid of Advance tickets "in the interests of simplification".

They are a huge own-goal in terms of bad publicity when trying to get the minority of passengers to adhere to the conditions they so blithely signed up to when wanting to buy the cheapest ticket available, and the systems in place to accommodate the genuine are either ignored or abused when these tickets are discussed by the wider media.

 

[bb21]

Yes. Only for a reply (http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/16204767) to then criticise us

Not really, unless I missed something?

 

[island]

I don't know how Amtrak make it work if it's so impossible in the UK. Much, much cheaper fares, and going on their website to read there terms of transportation makes the UK system look like the utter farce it is.

Amtrak's subsidy is substantially higher, I'd wager.

 

[hluraven]

I'm travelling from Birmingham to London this Sunday and booked an advance. I then found out that I may not be able to catch that train, so booked a second advance for a later train. It is still cheaper than buying a flexible ticket and I have no complaint whatsoever, I knew when I bought the first ticket that it was for that train only, and at my risk. The fact that you can get two tickets so cheaply (£7.50 each is pretty good imo) means that my £15 journey with a choice of two trains is well worth it.

If I hadn't bothered buying the second ticket and just got on the later train, claiming (whether or not true) that a member of staff said it was ok, then the entire point of advance tickets would be worthless.

 

[Flamingo]

The whole problem with the "make all fares cheaper and flexible" argument is that is really people wanting to have their cake and eat it. That would be fine, if there was a greater level of public subsidy.

There is a finite pot of money, so something else will have to be cut to increase the subsidy.

The only way to get that is to start lobbying your local MP, that the kids ward in the local hospital should be cut so that people can have cheaper train tickets to get to the footie.

Anybody want to do this?

 

[talltim]

The whole problem with the "make all fares cheaper and flexible" argument is that is really people wanting to have their cake and eat it. That would be fine, if there was a greater level of public subsidy.

There is a finite pot of money, so something else will have to be cut to increase the subsidy.

The only way to get that is to start lobbying your local MP, that the kids ward in the local hospital should be cut so that people can have cheaper train tickets to get to the footie.

Anybody want to do this?

It doesn't have to be kids hospitals that get the cuts you know.

 

[Fare-Cop]

And that is the topic Passenger Focus should be concentrating on - TOCs not complying with the NRCoC.

So you are saying that Passenger Focus should concentrate on putting pressure on TOCs not complying with NRCoC, and I agree that they should of course, but are you also saying travellers wishing to breach the terms that they sign up to can do so with impunity??