Is buying a ticket with intention to only start and stop short illegal?

[OwlMan]

Has anyone called XC directly to "clarify" if they believe the Lichfield TV to Smethwick ticket is valid between Nuneaton and Brum asif they say no then thats also an ATOC + Passenger Focus matter.

They know it is valid - they are just trying to bully us into not telling the public about alternatives. I am sure there will be a change to the National Routeing Guide soon. :cry:

 

[jkdd77]

It's very naughty of XC to falsely claim that the Lichfield TV to Smethwick season ticket is not valid for travel between intermediate stations, when I suspect that they know perfectly well that it is valid, however much they might wish otherwise. Indeed, their own website's journey planner shows the Lichfield TV to Smethwick ticket as being valid via Birmingham New Street and Nuneaton.

In the specific case of season tickets, a person might well wish to travel A to B on some days, and A to C on other days, so purchasing an A to C season valid via B is perfectly justifiable. Provided BoJ is permitted, which it is, and provided that the ticket is wholly valid for the journey actually made, a passenger's motives for buying the 'longer' ticket are not relevant- fare avoidance, like tax avoidance, is perfectly legitimate in the eyes of the law. Besides, who is to say that a Nuneaton-based purchaser of the Lichfield TV to Smethwick season ticket might not wish to travel to Lichfield one day, notwithstanding that their primary journey is to Birmingham New Street?

A person who purchases a season ticket buys the right, but not the obligation, to travel, in the correct class where applicable, between the stations named, and between intermediate stations within the validity period of the ticket. The passenger, in buying the ticket, does not represent that they intend to travel solely or mainly between the specific stations listed on the ticket, or even represent that they will travel at all.

I myself have bought 7DSs to a further station, at the same price, in order to give added flexibility 'just in case' I wish to make additional travel, and once bought a cheap season ticket purely for the season ticket benefits, with no intention of ever using it.

I was once 'told off' by a XC train manager for using a perfectly valid and straightforward combination of tickets; I complained to XC customer services, who grudgingly admitted that the tickets used were wholly valid and that staff would be 'advised appropriately'; I wonder whether this ever actually happened.

I suspect that the aim of XC, along with other TOCs, may well be to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt so that passengers worry about confrontation or even prosecution and so buy more expensive tickets than they need to.

I wonder if Owlman has considered raising the matter with Passenger Focus, ATOC, the DfT, and even Trading Standards, as an example of an 'misleading commercial practice' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

[infobleep]

Thank you for your replies. I've sent my friend a link to this forum thread. I haven't named the stations or company involved because I don't wish to do that.

The staff are very helpful and friendly when I usually speak to them but I do wonder if they are trained to think it isn't right. I don't know. I don't want to make any accusations one way or another. I'm sure it's not easy being rail staff.

 

[bb21]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

A counter-example would be Northern's £80 penalty.

Fair enough. While I don't think they are the same type of actions due to the differing circumstances under which they arise, I appreciate that there are parallels that can be drawn between these two courses of action.

Simply removing the phrase 'You are being "robbed" by Arriva Cross Country' and replacing it with something like 'Here's how to make a big saving" would make it less contentious.

I'm not sure why you've referred to 'Arriva Cross Country' (as most people won't know or care that XC is a subsidiary of Arriva. (You haven't referred to 'Go-Via London Midland'.) I reckon that (should it come to it) it would be fairly easy for a barrister to convince a judge or jury that by linking the Arriva name with the word robbery, you were deliberately setting out to impugn them

Personally I would add something along the lines of 'Because of the bizarre way that fares are set on the privatised railway, sometime it's cheaper to buy a ticket for a longer journey!' and remove mention of any individual TOCs.

Like I said. I don't think the way for XC to resolve this is by legal action and I do agree with with your motivation to inform people of cheaper ticket options. But for some reason, you've opted for a confrontational route... which IMHO is an unnecessary risk.

Yes, I think there are some very good points in here. It is important to ask what the main thing is that we want to achieve here. The more focused the message is, the more effective it is likely to be. There are many things an ordinary passenger would not care a bit about.

 

[furryfeet]

Has anyone called XC directly to "clarify" if they believe the Lichfield TV to Smethwick ticket is valid between Nuneaton and Brum asif they say no then thats also an ATOC + Passenger Focus matter.

Have ATOC / Passenger Focus / Rail Regulator etc been contacted in any case ?
Otherwise what is there to stop XC (and presumably other TOCs) carrying on with this propanganda ?

 

[TPJ]

Before my retirement my annual season ticket was Barry Island to Coryton although I always got on at Barry Town and off at Ty Glas

 

[VladTepes]

I read this thread with interest after having a similar question myself.

Here's the question again:
Customer wants to travel from A to B but notices a ticket from A to C costs less than a ticket from A to B. The ticket from A to C is valid via B and allows ending a journey short and break of journey. Is it lawful for the customer to purchase a ticket A to C when they only intend to travel A to B?

I believe this to be the correct legal argument:

The answer I've found is that it depends. It depends on whether the train company offer the ticket A to C for sale to make a journey from A to B. This is ultimately down to contract law and possibly where professional advice from a solicitor will be required.

If you tell the train company you want to travel from A to B, but you'd like the ticket A to C as it's cheaper and they accept this and sell you the ticket A to C, then from what I can see, that's completely legal and lawful and it need not be discussed further.

However, if they refuse to sell you the ticket A to C or advise you that the ticket A to C is not available for the journey A to B, you then tell them porkies that you want to make a journey A to C when you intend to only travel from A to B, from what I can see this would be fraud which is a criminal offence. (Deception in order to avoid paying in part or full, the fare for your journey).

There seems to be an argument in this and other posts that the ticket condition which allows ending a journey early and break of journey means that the train company has offered the ticket A to C for sale to make a journey from A to B such that there is effectively 2 different tickets for sale for the journey A to B – you can either buy a ticket A to B or buy a ticket A to C, both are valid for the journey A to B. I don’t believe this to be the case, but I’ve been unable to obtain a definitive answer from anyone.

So hence there’s the “it depends”. If they have offered the ticket A to C to make a journey from A to B, then it’s OK, if they haven’t, you’re committing fraud. This is where professional advice from a solicitor/discussion with train company would be required.

 

[jkdd77]

There seems to be an argument in this and other posts that the ticket condition which allows ending a journey early and break of journey means that the train company has offered the ticket A to C for sale to make a journey from A to B such that there is effectively 2 different tickets for sale for the journey A to B – you can either buy a ticket A to B or buy a ticket A to C, both are valid for the journey A to B. I don’t believe this to be the case, but I’ve been unable to obtain a definitive answer from anyone.

I believe that it is absolutely clear and unequivocal that an A to C ticket which allows BoJ is indeed valid to make a journey from A to intermediate station B regardless of the pricing of the A to B ticket. To argue otherwise would be to claim that a ticket condition (and therefore contractual term) which clearly and unequivocally permits BoJ at intermediate stations does not actually permit BoJ after all; such an interpretation would be absurd, perverse, and turn the meaning of the English language on its head.

The TOCs might not wish this to be the case, and might even publicly claim that it is not the case, but they are nonetheless bound by the conditions of their franchise agreements and the wholly clear wording of the NRCoC.

Furthermore, if a TOC falsely claims that an A to C ticket which permits BoJ is not valid for travel to intermediate station B, then it is the TOC that has committed a crime, namely, a misleading commercial practice contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and, if it does so knowing of the falsity of the statement in order to cynically maximise profit, then it is the TOC which has made a fraudulent misrepresentation.

"Discussions with the TOC" are not necessary or helpful in determining the validity of the ticket, especially as the TOC has a clear financial incentive to make a fraudulent misrepresentation; the wording of the contract is what matters, and, as I understand it, at least two prosecutions for using Condition 19 splits to save money on the advertised through fare have already failed after the magistrates accepted that it is fare avoidance rather than fare evasion and that fare avoidance is wholly legitimate.

In the days of rovers, rangers, season tickets, advance tickets (with multiple prices for the same journey), Megatrain tickets, combinations of tickets, anytime tickets, and off-peak tickets there is no longer only one valid fare between stations A to B, but rather several valid fares between any given pair of stations.

Having freely entered into a contract for travel which allows BoJ at intermediate stations, the TOC(s) cannot evade their obligations simply because they regret the bargain they have entered into, any more than a passenger who buys a ticket and no longer needs to travel is entitled to demand a full refund because he or she regrets the bargain he or she has entered into.

Fare avoidance, like tax avoidance, (and unlike tax evasion and fare evasion) is wholly legitimate, and most certainly does not constitute a fraud.

A passenger who buys an A to C ticket online, or who simply requests to purchase an A to C ticket, which permits BoJ, without expanding on that statement, does not make any representation about the actual journey they intend to make, (and silence does not constitute a misrepresentation). In the specific case of a season ticket, a person buying an A to C season ticket intending to travel primarily from A to B may nonetheless wish to travel to C on occasion.

If a passenger buys an A to C ticket which permits BoJ, then the only conditions and prices that matter are those of the contract which has actually been entered into, namely those associated with the A to C ticket. The conditions and pricing of a A to B ticket is not at all relevant because the passenger has not entered into that contract.

To those who claim it is not valid, I would ask:
1) Do you accept that tickets which clearly permit BoJ do indeed, by virtue of the plain and clear wording of NRCoC Condition 16, allow travel to intermediate stations at the passenger's sole discretion, acknowledge that this Condition cannot be interpreted in any other way, and futher accept that that the passenger's reasoning for making that journey cannot logically or reasonably amount to a secret condition overriding the contractual condition allowing BoJ?
2) If you claim that an A to C season ticket must be used primarly between stations A and C only, what is the precise proportion of journeys for which you claim that BoJ at intermediate stations is secretly forbidden (without the passenger even being informed of this secret condition), or do you claim that BoJ at intermediate stations is not allowed at all?
3) Do you (or would you) practice tax avoidance by putting money in ISAs; if so, do you accept that tax avoidance is legitimate, and, if so, do you accept that fare avoidance, as distinct from fare evasion, is also legitimate? If not, why not?
4) If a passenger has purchased an A to C ticket, why exactly are the conditions and pricings of an A to B ticket of any relevance at all to the interpretation and terms of the A to C ticket, since buying the A to B ticket would constitute a separate contract, and one which the passenger has not actually entered into?
5) Would you claim that a passenger who buys a rover in order to save money on a point-to-point SVR ticket has committed a fraud, and, if not, how does this differ from a passenger who buys a season ticket (effectively a point-to-point rover) or an ordinary ticket in order to save money?

 

[bb21]

The only situation I can think of where you would not be permitted to break your journey at an "intermediate" station with a season ticket is when the station is only on a permitted route by virtue of the "group stations rule" as the permission is only granted for interchange purposes only.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Surely, the legal argument about contracts with any one given TOC are something of an irrelevance, as all the TOCs are bound, under the terms of their franchises, to operate substantially as part of a National network. Any ticket sold, unless it specifies validity limited to one TOC (or to exclude one or more TOCs) is effectively a National ticket, and all TOCs are bound to accept it within its validity. When one buys such a ticket, regardless of who actually sells it (which may be any TOC) there is no specific contract with any one TOC.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I believe that it is absolutely clear and unequivocal that an A to C ticket which allows BoJ is indeed valid to make a journey from A to intermediate station B regardless of the pricing of the A to B ticket. To argue otherwise would be to claim that a ticket condition (and therefore contractual term) which clearly and unequivocally permits BoJ at intermediate stations does not actually permit BoJ after all; such an interpretation would be absurd, perverse, and turn the meaning of the English language on its head.

. . . .

I'm inclined to call that rhetoric rather than reason! However, I am in agreement with you (with certain provisos).

To add fact to the rhetoric, I already offered 2 authorities in Law which I recommend again (you dismissed Hinchcliffe because his ticket didn't allow B-o-J, but that wasn't the point which helps us here). Let me clarify.

In London & N.W. Railway Co v Hinchcliffe the passenger from Huddersfield to Manchester wanted to pay the difference between the ticket held for part of his journey (as far as Stalybridge) and the ticket which he did not hold for the full end-to-end journey. This was a civil claim and not a Criminal Prosecution. The Court held that he was entitled to pay only the difference (i.e. a lower amount than his original ticket plus a Stalybridge to Manchester ticket) (The Conditions did not correspond to those that apply today but the principle may be cited).

In R v Frere the passenger held a ticket for Colchester to Norwich which was a longer journey and cheaper ticket than the intended journey to Diss. The Court ruled that if a ticket is available for use at the intermediate stations, then no proceedings can be taken under S 5.3 of the Regulation of Railways Act nor under the Byelaws. (No opinion arises to the prospects for a civil action claiming the correct fare).

Another authority is found in Great Northern Railway Co v Winder in which the passenger from Leeds alighted early at Frisby (on a cheap ticket to Skegness). On Prosecution, the Court found that the dispute is a matter of Contract which must have a civil remedy, and not a penalty nor a Byelaw Offence. (The subsequent re-trial for the Civil claim succeeded though the Company only claimed for the difference in fares).

I suggest that these Decisions are more persuasive than analogies with liabilities to personal Taxation.

 

[cjp]

The only situation I can think of where you would not be permitted to break your journey at an "intermediate" station with a season ticket is when the station is only on a permitted route by virtue of the "group stations rule" as the permission is only granted for interchange purposes only.

When I read things like this my head spins and I know I need to attend a fares workshop

 

[VladTepes]

Thank you all, but I don't think that's answered the question I posed:

A ticket for the journey station A to station C, has the TOC made this ticket available to be purchased against the shorter journey A to B?

From what I can see, NRCoC rule 16 does not apply until after you have bought the ticket as you do not acquire the legal right to use that rule until purchase has been completed. So provided that the ticket purchase is lawful, it is perfectly allowed to use the ticket A to C for the journey A to B, this was/is never in doubt.

The question I posed is at the stage before you acquire the legal right to use NRCoC rule 16. You cannot use something you don’t own, so I don’t see how the existence of NRCoC rule 16 helps to answer the question I posed (in fact, I think NRCoC rule 16 is irrelevant to the question).

So the logic goes:
I tell the ticket office staff I want to make the journey A to C when I actually want to make the journey A to B, which is at a higher price. I know there is a rule contained in the ticket A to C that allows me to use it for the journey A to B, and as I want to avoid paying the higher fare, I decide not to tell the ticket office staff I actually want to go A to B.

I cannot see how that’s not misrepresentation – I’ve told them I want to go A to C when I actually want to go A to B and I’ve done that deliberately in order to avoid paying the higher fare knowing that once ticket purchase has been completed, I can use NRCoC rule 16 to make the journey A to B. So in this scenario, unless the TOC has specifically made the fare A to C available for purchase against the journey A to B, I will not have lawfully acquired the ticket and hence the right to use NRCoC rule 16.

That all said, even if that is the case, it would be extremely difficult for a TOC to prove that’s what I did (they’d have to grow the ability to mind read )

In the case of R vs Frere, the prosecution was under S5.3 of the Railways Act which does not deal with purchasing tickets by misrepresentation to avoid the higher priced fare. You may want to read through section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which makes this a specific criminal offence.

I think lets leave the discussion there as I think we’re unlikely to get an answer until such times someone ends up in court.

 

[Deerfold]

So the logic goes:
I tell the ticket office staff I want to make the journey A to C when I actually want to make the journey A to B, which is at a higher price. I know there is a rule contained in the ticket A to C that allows me to use it for the journey A to B, and as I want to avoid paying the higher fare, I decide not to tell the ticket office staff I actually want to go A to B.

I cannot see how that’s not misrepresentation – I’ve told them I want to go A to C when I actually want to go A to B and I’ve done that deliberately in order to avoid paying the higher fare knowing that once ticket purchase has been completed, I can use NRCoC rule 16 to make the journey A to B. So in this scenario, unless the TOC has specifically made the fare A to C available for purchase against the journey A to B, I will not have lawfully acquired the ticket and hence the right to use NRCoC rule 16.

You don't tell them you want to make the journey from A to B - you tell them you want to buy the ticket from A to C. You have made no reference to your journey.

I've bought a ticket from station D, starting at station X (south of D) and then used it to Station E (north of D). It's cheaper than buying D-E. No-one asked me what journey I was making.

 

[beeza1]

I am finding this thread most interesting as almost all my rail journeys involve either starting short or stopping short, sometimes both, I had never even considered it could be "illegal".

I purchase a ticket from A to C changing trains at B, a couple of days before I travel, before I set off I check A to B is on time, if not I go straight to B by other means, lift, taxi, etc, on my return journey when I get to B, I may have a 2 hour wait to catch a train to A, or if it's a Sunday I would have to wait until the next morning so again I use a taxi, I have been doing this for several years now and have never had any problems, in fact when I bought my A to C ticket for the first time I asked if need be, could I start at B, as the A to B service is unreliable, (it has got better), I was told "yes no problem".

 

[craigwilson]

Thank you all, but I don't think that's answered the question I posed:

A ticket for the journey station A to station C, has the TOC made this ticket available to be purchased against the shorter journey A to B?

Well, leaving aside that a TOC whose trains operate a route aren't always the same TOC that sets the fare - it doesn't matter if the TOC wish it to be available for A to B or not - if the restrictions on the ticket from A to C do not forbid break of journey, then it's allowed to end at B - by NRCoC rule 16.

So the logic goes:
I tell the ticket office staff I want to make the journey A to C when I actually want to make the journey A to B, which is at a higher price. I know there is a rule contained in the ticket A to C that allows me to use it for the journey A to B, and as I want to avoid paying the higher fare, I decide not to tell the ticket office staff I actually want to go A to B.

I cannot see how that’s not misrepresentation – I’ve told them I want to go A to C when I actually want to go A to B and I’ve done that deliberately in order to avoid paying the higher fare knowing that once ticket purchase has been completed, I can use NRCoC rule 16 to make the journey A to B. So in this scenario, unless the TOC has specifically made the fare A to C available for purchase against the journey A to B, I will not have lawfully acquired the ticket and hence the right to use NRCoC rule 16.

I think lets leave the discussion there as I think we’re unlikely to get an answer until such times someone ends up in court.

Call it what you want - you don't buy a journey, you buy a ticket which gives you the right to make any journey or journies that the validity of that ticket allows. In buying a ticket from A to C, you have the right (as long as the restriction text doesn't say otherwise) to stop at intermediate station B, and at no point are you committing fraud by asking for the A to C ticket. That's just the way it is.

 

[soil]

I'm inclined to call that rhetoric rather than reason! However, I am in agreement with you (with certain provisos).

To add fact to the rhetoric, I already offered 2 authorities in Law which I recommend again (you dismissed Hinchcliffe because his ticket didn't allow B-o-J, but that wasn't the point which helps us here). Let me clarify.

...
I suggest that these Decisions are more persuasive than analogies with liabilities to personal Taxation.

I am not sure of how relevant any of the quoted decisions are to modern practice, since the conditions of carriage have changed.

 

[junglejames]

From the Oxford English Dictionary

We are referring to the last definition - unashamed swindling or overcharging. (Which is why it is in inverted commas)

Unfortunately I believe AXC would have a case against you for Libel. But not for loss of earnings. Have AXC really overcharged anyone? Not really. If someone asks for a season ticket between Nuneaton and Brum, and thats what they are given and charged for, then that is not robbery or overcharging. It is perfectly legal. Yes there may be a cheaper option which is valid, but that doesnt mean the price of Nuneaton to Brum is robbery. It isnt, so if you ask for Nuneaton to Brum, and you get charged for that, then that is perfectly fine.
It would only really be robbery if they refused to sell you the cheaper season ticket for the cheaper price (obviously they would never do that though).
Another way you could possibly claim robbery, is if AXC were refusing to allow people to use the cheaper season ticket between Nuneaton and Brum. But as long as the guards are allowing it, again you cant use that as a reason to claim robbery.

Sorry, but the term 'robbery' should be left out of the poster. That is definitely Libel, and I dont think AXC would have much trouble in convincing a court. However take the word 'robbery' out, and they dont have a leg to stand on. By including that word, you have allowed your heart to rule your head. Plus anybody else on here that thinks the term 'robbery' is a fair term, is also allowing their heart to rule their head. Or just allowing their hatred of AXC to cloud their judgement.

The idea of the poster advising passengers of the cheaper, and valid, season ticket, is a brilliant idea. Dont get emotive though. It could possibly land you in hot water.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Government has referred to Arriva Cross Country.

However you are right in thatt XC don't appear to want people to know they are owned by Arriva and keep quiet about it

I don't think they have anything to worry about.

Perhaps that reason is that XC are, themselves, confrontational, and make threats against passengers who travel on their trains, in accordance with an itinerary and/or the Routeing Guide and/or the ticket terms & conditions (as appropriate)?

You don't like the wording - that's fine, your choice, but XC need challenging, and it's refreshing to see some people stand up against XC!

Two rights dont make a right. Just because AXC are confrontational, doesnt mean you can accuse them unfairly of robbery. You seem to be guilty of letting your hatred of AXC get in the way of your judgement.

 

[soil]

Sorry, but the term 'robbery' should be left out of the poster. That is definitely Libel

It is not 'definitely'. That would be a matter of fact to be determined by the jury in the individual case.

In this case the Arkell vs Pressdram reply would seem appropriate to me, given that XC would be ill-advised to launch a highly publicised legal action, highlighting their extortionate fares.

The intent here is to get owlman & chums to stop. It is a threat. But not in my view a threat that would be carried through with action. A train company sueing its customers for revealing their high fares would be extremely bad PR.

 

[junglejames]

It is not 'definitely'. That would be a matter of fact to be determined by the jury in the individual case.

In this case the Arkell vs Pressdram reply would seem appropriate to me, given that XC would be ill-advised to launch a highly publicised legal action, highlighting their extortionate fares.

The intent here is to get owlman & chums to stop. It is a threat. But not in my view a threat that would be carried through with action. A train company sueing its customers for revealing their high fares would be extremely bad PR.

I have no doubt what AXC are up to, and id have no problem taking their blatant lies (as in the letter they sent out) further. However it is still libel to say they are robbing you.
Simple way of looking at it:
Are they robbing you? No they are not (a cheaper valid ticket does not make another ticket 'robbery')
Have you claimed they are robbing you? Yes.

That is libel. If a court never found in favour of AXC on that point alone, then I would be very surprised. The only chance you would have, is if you showed the letter they sent, with all the lies, and claimed they intended to 'rob' people. But as the letter was sent out after the original poster was put up, then its unlikely this would work.

OK, AXC are highly unlikely to take it further, but they do have a case regards the 'libel' side of their argument, and its best to avoid anything that you could be found guilty over in situations like this, even if it isnt going to go that far.

Id definitely try to take their lies further though. Make it well known that what they are claiming is a blatant lie. Hopefully someone like Barry Doe will hear of it, and publicise it in his column.

 

[soil]

I have no doubt what AXC are up to, and id have no problem taking their blatant lies (as in the letter they sent out) further. However it is still libel to say they are robbing you.
Simple way of looking at it:
Are they robbing you? No they are not (a cheaper valid ticket does not make another ticket 'robbery')
Have you claimed they are robbing you? Yes.

Actually I think the leaflet is pretty clear, including quote marks around the world robbery, a word which has already been defined above as including charging an inflated price for something.

If you put up a poster saying only 'AXC robs commuters', then they could possibly argue that 'robs' meant that they were literally robbing people, something which would be libellous.

But here where it explains that a cheaper ticket is valid for the journey, it is quite clear that they are not claiming that AXC are literally stealing people's possessions, but merely charging an excessive price.


Here is a Malaysian case (their legal system is based on ours), so it shows the reasoning:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...q1UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GJADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6548,1309997

Not libellous at all.

 

[island]

It is not 'definitely'. That would be a matter of fact to be determined by the jury in the individual case.

Or the judge, as libel juries have recently been abolished.

 

[OwlMan]

Just to advise you that we have arranged a meeting with two TOC directors on Thursday.

 

[jkdd77]

For what it is worth, I've found numerous online tabloid and union articles referring to "great fares robbery" or similar phrases:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-rocket-11-season-tickets-costing-6-000.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/train-fare-price-rises-uk-1261574
http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/whats-new/news/index.cfm/the-great-train-fares-robbery

I'd presume that the relevant solicitors have advised the firms/ unions involved that it is safe to use the phrase "robbery" in this context.

That said, if it had been me writing the posters, I would probably would have used a less emotive phrase in order to minimise the risk of confrontation.

 

[neilmc]

For what it is worth, I've found numerous online tabloid and union articles referring to "great fares robbery" or similar phrases:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-rocket-11-season-tickets-costing-6-000.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/train-fare-price-rises-uk-1261574
http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/whats-new/news/index.cfm/the-great-train-fares-robbery

I'd presume that the relevant solicitors have advised the firms/ unions involved that it is safe to use the phrase "robbery" in this context.

That said, if it had been me writing the posters, I would probably would have used a less emotive phrase in order to minimise the risk of confrontation.

Yes but TOCs grovel before the media whilst trying to bully and ... er, lets's say "impose unjust charges and conditions" ... on individuals or small groups which they perceive to have inadequate clout to successfully take them on.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Newspapers have large and well paid legal departments. Rail user groups do not. Thus, it is advisable to be more certain than a newspaper needs to be that you are on the right side of the libel laws.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

We seem to have too many lines of thought runnung through this thread.

I tell the ticket office staff I want to make the journey A to C when I actually want to make the journey A to B, which is at a higher price. I know there is a rule contained in the ticket A to C that allows me to use it for the journey A to B, and as I want to avoid paying the higher fare, I decide not to tell the ticket office staff I actually want to go A to B.

I cannot see how that’s not misrepresentation –

. . .

I think lets leave the discussion there as I think we’re unlikely to get an answer until such times someone ends up in court.

I'll assume that you have just made this up; if you have been told this is 'misrepresentation' or have read it, then please tell us where you came across this idea. It is wrong.

There is no misrepresentation when there is no obligation to do anything (the 'performance' of a contract). It is only the Railway Companies which incur the obligation: the obligation to convey the ticket holding passenger.
All that the passenger is required to do is to pay for that ticket. They are not under any obligation to travel; for all or part of the journey. As craigwilson explained, the passenger doesn't contract with the Company to operate a train, doesn't contract to take a journey and doesn't contract to travel.

Because there is no obligation to travel then there can be no action which the Railway Company takes as a result of the wrongly named station for which they could claim damages. Damages for losses are the normal remedy for a misrepresentation in a Contract.
Misrepresentation would require that the passenger intends a Railway Company to take a certain action (by entering into the Contract) and then for the Company to actually take that action (as a consequence of the misrepresentation).

I'm sure the introductory paragraphs in any text book on Contract Law in the chapter covering misrepresentation will clarify this for you.
There are rafts of Case Law on misrepresentation already and I'm sure that we don't need another on the simple question of a ticket to a station further than the intended destination!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Call it what you want - you don't buy a journey, you buy a ticket which gives you the right to make any journey or journies that the validity of that ticket allows....

You do not buy a ticket, you pay for a service (or services). The ticket remains the property of the railway, it is little more than a token to show you have paid (or not) for your journey(s).

 

[soil]

Or the judge, as libel juries have recently been abolished.

No they haven't.

 

[NotDeadYet]

Just to advise you that we have arranged a meeting with two TOC directors on Thursday.

I imagine the mainstream media could be interested in this story. The threatening letter elevates it above just another consumer item.

It might be worth contacting Radio 4's You & Yours (the BBC's daily consumer affairs programme). It often covers stories about the railways. It may have a smaller audience than its tv equivalents but it is quite influential - MPs and other media outlets pick up on some of its stories.