• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

jkdd77

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
559
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.

I agree with this.

I also think that, where a station is only considered an "intermediate station" due to the presence of a double-back easement allowing travel through the listed destination station to a further station, it is highly questionable whether a passenger could validly buy a A to B season ticket and (ab?)use the easement to "finish short" at C. However, many would doubtless argue otherwise.

In general, if a passenger wishes to save money by using 'loopholes' (such as Condition 19 splits, BoJ permissions, Routeing Guide and restriction code anomalies), he or she needs to be sure that the ticket purchased is actually wholly valid for the journey made, otherwise it could be a very expensive mistake indeed. If there is doubt as to the validity of the ticket, it would be prudent to err on the side of caution.

I also agree with ralphchadkirk's post on the need for small organisations to take extra care with regard to the possibility of being sued for libel.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

LexyBoy

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
4,478
Location
North of the rivers
I don’t think there’s any question about the validity of starting or stopping short once the contract has been entered into. It seems to me that the question is whether there’s any problem with a customer entering into that contract in the first place.

Unless there is a requirement somewhere in law that the customer must state their actual journey(s) and be offered a ticket for that, then I cannot see how there is any problem with a customer “misrepresenting” their journey in order to obtain a cheaper ticket. In any case as noted above, one would usually ask for a ticket from A to B, with no explicit mention of what journey(s) will actually be made. The Railway offers a range of services, with each contract allowing travel as defined in the NRCoC. As far as I am aware, a customer is entitled to enter into any contract they are entitled to, irrespective of use. Presumably, a TOC could equally refuse to sell a ticket which they believed would be used as a fare avoidance stratagy.

(I exclude from the above cases where there is a genuine “loophole” which is being exploited, in which case I believe there is a sound legal basis for claims of Fraud).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I also think that, where a station is only considered an "intermediate station" due to the presence of a double-back easement allowing travel through the listed destination station to a further station, it is highly questionable whether a passenger could validly buy a A to B season ticket and (ab?)use the easement to "finish short" at C. However, many would doubtless argue otherwise.

I am aware that this seems to be a well-held view here. I don't quite buy it myself (it seems to boil down, as things always do, to what "journey" means), and it's one of the reasons I'll have to get myself to a Fares Workshop!
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
I exclude from the above cases where there is a genuine “loophole” which is being exploited, in which case I believe there is a sound legal basis for claims of Fraud

There are many loopholes, i.e. ambiguities, in the NRCoC and associated RG. By definition that means there is doubtfulness or uncertainty regarding interpretation. I do not believe taking the interpretation most beneficial to the passenger can be equated to fraud.
 

LexyBoy

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
4,478
Location
North of the rivers
There are many loopholes, i.e. ambiguities, in the NRCoC and associated RG. By definition that means there is doubtfulness or uncertainty regarding interpretation. I do not believe taking the interpretation most beneficial to the passenger can be equated to fraud.

I was thinking more along the lines of journey planners giving clearly invalid routes. I will leave the question of whether using routes clearly not intended to be permitted (e.g. using a ticket between two stations in central London to travel to Cambridge) could be considered fraud to those with some legal knowledge.

Obviously it's difficult to draw the line between routes being "obviously reasonable" / "understandable" / "unreasonable" / "clearly anomalous". And in any case, the correct course of action should be for the TOC affected to correct the anomaly, rather than punishing those who (ab)use it.
 

craigwilson

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2010
Messages
424
Location
Buxton, Derbyshire
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).

Quite. The widely-used colloquialism is that you "buy a ticket" though.

I am aware that the bolded section above is the actual situation, yes, but to your average Joe Public, this is neither here nor there - they have "bought a ticket".
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
Quite. The widely-used colloquialism is that you "buy a ticket" though.

I am aware that the bolded section above is the actual situation, yes, but to your average Joe Public, this is neither here nor there - they have "bought a ticket".

It may be common speak or how joe public see it, but in a thread asking about legalities, "paying for a service" is what actually happens, and so "buying a journey" is actually closer to the truth than "buying a ticket".
 

soil

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2012
Messages
1,956
Have you read section 11 of the Defamation Act 2013?

Yes the court can order for a jury trial under s11, but the presumption is for a trial by judge alone.

However no commencement order has yet been brought in for the Act, so the old law remains in place until that time.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
I also agree with ralphchadkirk's post on the need for small organisations to take extra care with regard to the possibility of being sued for libel.
I also agree.
I will add that many 'small organisations' are only organisations in the minds of the participants but have no legal identity which could be sued. Consequently, the individuals involved in such ad hoc groups may find themselves personally liable, jointly or individually, for any claim which is sucessfully brought against them.

In practice, many aggrieved Companies will make a lot of noise and bluster in the hope they can scare the individuals into withdrawing their allegations and will settle for an undertaking to 'cease and desist'.
 
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Messages
516
The use of the rob terminology feels pretty safe to me when placed in the context of Cross Country trying to insist that the National Conditions of Carriage do not apply. As a business they are providing ticketing advice in contravenrion of their contract as a TOC the consequence of which is to boost their revenues.

So please lets stop flapping about having them sue anyone. Deep down no matter how tough the TOCs might talk they know that they can't ignore the rules they are obliged to obey, and the notion of them demonstrating their error in court for public humiliation of their hubris seems unlikely.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
 

cgcenet

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2011
Messages
56
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.

Any purchase of a ticket at a ticket office counter using money to which you are lawfully entitled, and which you intend to use in accordance with the NRCoC, is lawful, end of story. Intent beyond the conditions of NRCoC is irrelevant.

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

It may or may not be so, but it's irrelevant, since there is no requirement to have a specific intent in order to buy a ticket. You are entitled to buy any ticket that is valid for the journey you intend to make, end of story.

I think you are trying to be clever here. As you yourself say, it is practically impossible for a TOC to prove intent on the part of the purchaser. Also there is the requirement for TOCs to act impartially when selling tickets and advising customers. Essentially this means that if you ask for a certain ticket, they have to sell you it.

You may have some idea that the preceived "misrepresentation" involved in buying a ticket and starting/stopping short in order to save money is somehow ungentlemanly, breaking some sort of unwritten moral code. But that is not the same as being fraudulent. The only representation you are making to a TOC when you purchase a ticket from A to B is that you wish to purchase a ticket from A to B. Nothing more, nothing less. How you intend to use it is none of their lawful business, provided it is within the terms of the NRCoC.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
Thank you for for all your replies. I was catching up via my e-mail digest this morning.

My season ticket is actually station A to D and I mostly travel from B to C. However at least once a week I travel from C passing through D onto E, since there are multiple routes to reach D from A. I then do the reverse the next morning. It was actually these latter two once a week journeys which lead me to the season ticket. Before anyone questions this. I had it confirmed about 2 years ago by First Great Western that I did not have to be on a train which stopped at my starting/finishing station if multiple routes from it were possible.

If train companies offered discounts for passengers travelling regularly once a week, like they do for travellers travelling for just 1 month, with their monthly season ticket discount, I would never have gone into this in the way I have. I make more peak time journeys in one year than someone travelling to one place for one month but despite my twice weekly loyalty for a whole year, only they are offered discounts and I am not. It's no wonder I look for legal alternatives within the system.
 

OwlMan

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2008
Messages
3,206
Location
Bedworth, Warwickshire
Following a meeting with the TOC involved yesterday an agreement has been reached that satisfies both parties.
No further comment will be made.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
Whilst no comment can be made, is anything regarding the tickets along the XC route going to change. Or is it just a agreement surrounding previous and future communications on the subject on said tickets.

Just curious that's all.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Sorry infobleep but I don't quite understand the question.

XC cannot change the NRCoC*, or the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement and they must honour valid tickets.

(* They can propose changes but it requires the agreement of other TOCs and, ultimately, the DfT)
 

OwlMan

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2008
Messages
3,206
Location
Bedworth, Warwickshire
Without going into further details XC will accept all valid tickets (as they are obliged to do so) between Nuneaton & Birmingham including Lichfield TV - Smethwick GB tickets.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
Fair enough. I guess it's more to do with what was said or might be said rather than what ticket exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top