Northern and prosecutions for railcard use before 10am

[infobleep]

Ben Kentish is currently discussing this on LBC with Jack from Bolton News. So it's ande a national radio station.

I was only just reading this thread for the first time when it came on.

 

[londonbridge]

Getting ready for work with the radio on and the second case listed in the opening post of the thread was mentioned in the headlines on Wake Up To Money at 5am on 5live. The item hadn’t come on before I had to leave so I’ll have a listen on BBC Sounds later.

 

[daodao]

As well as several reports on the radio, the issue is discussed on the BBC News website at:

Man faces legal action by Northern over £1.90 rail ticket error

A man who mistakenly bought an invalid ticket is threatened with court by rail firm, Northern.

www.bbc.co.uk

'I'm facing court over £1.90 rail ticket error'​

9 October 2024
A man who paid £1.90 less than he should have for a train ticket faces being taken to court by a rail firm despite admitting his error and offering to pay a fine or a new fare.

The passenger affected called on Northern to make it clearer that “an anytime ticket is not any time with a railcard”.

IMO, failure to display this point on the ticket purchase screen is "mis-selling", and criminalising the purchaser, while legally correct, is morally wrong.

 

[Djgr]

How would that even work? Just because you're delayed 45 mins on one train doesn't mean your overall journey is delayed.

Delay repay doesn't apply to specific trains, it applies to the entire passenger journey.

How do you know how many people where on a specific train with a ticket/journey entitled to delay repay?

Seems a very strange thing to say, especially as TOCs generally are pretty good at paying out compensation, and have taken a lot of positive steps in helping customers claim it automatically, if they opt in, wherever it is practical to do.

An exact figure might be difficult to calculate but if you look on other threads you will see Transport Focus have managed to estimate that only 47% is claimed.

So, kind gentleman that I am, I would just round it with TOCs making charity donation for the same amount. It would certainly be an appropriate gesture to meet their moral obligations.

 

[Indigo Soup]

While I don't necessarily agree with the T&Cs of the various railcards, the railway is broadly entitled to set whatever conditions it likes. And to enforce those T&Cs. It probably ought to be made harder to accidentally buy the wrong ticket, of course.

What's patently absurd is that that enforcement is allowed to take the route of criminal prosecution, especially where the breach took place in good faith and the passenger was willing to rectify the error by purchase of an excess, wholly new ticket, or even a penalty fare.

I'm sure there are people who intentionally travel on incorrect tickets, and a harsher line might be appropriate where there's a pattern or where high value tickets are concerned. But where the operator's ticket purchasing system makes it easy to buy the wrong ticket,

FWIW, when I had a Young Person's Railcard (long enough ago that it was still called that!) I'm pretty sure that TVMs wouldn't sell a ticket below the minimum fare during the restricted period. Occasionally a nuisance if intending to travel on the 1002 train, but no great hardship. I'm not entirely sure why the apps can't do something similar when purchasing tickets for immediate travel.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'm not entirely sure why the apps can't do something similar when purchasing tickets for immediate travel.

They literally do. It's just people are able to select later trains where the discount is valid, but then actually travel on the earlier train where it isn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FWIW, when I had a Young Person's Railcard (long enough ago that it was still called that!) I'm pretty sure that TVMs wouldn't sell a ticket below the minimum fare during the restricted period. Occasionally a nuisance if intending to travel on the 1002 train, but no great hardship. I'm not entirely sure why the apps can't do something similar when purchasing tickets for immediate travel.

Because you select which train you're travelling on. The only thing I think they specifically do wrong is that it says "valid at any time" when it should say "valid at any time, subject to Railcard time/validity restrictions" if you purchased with one.

Non-planner TVMs indeed generally won't let you buy a discounted ticket at the wrong time (but will let you "price it up" to the minimum for the odd cases where you might want to, e.g. where you may want to "price up" £11.something to £12 on a Family card so as to obtain discounted child tickets) but if you select the option that many have to buy a ticket for travel at a different time it will let you.

 

[yorkie]

If anyone is considering a class action claim against Northern, this forum has access to fares experts who could assist.

Furthermore, this sort of case is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what tricks Northern gets up to, however I won't go into detail regarding any other matters as I don't want this thread to get dragged off topic.

But suffice to say, there are many many examples of Northern mistreating customers, and in some cases even refusing to accept valid tickets!

I believe it was £8 for singles and £16 for returns before it became £12 across the board.

It was £8 for Savers (including Saver Returns) before "simplification" resulted in a fares increase through the backdoor for these former Saver fares (now called Off Peak Returns, but retaining their SVR code)

Because you select which train you're travelling on. The only thing I think they specifically do wrong is that it says "valid at any time" when it should say "valid at any time, subject to Railcard time/validity restrictions" if you purchased with one.

Non-planner TVMs indeed generally won't let you buy a discounted ticket at the wrong time (but will let you "price it up" to the minimum for the odd cases where you might want to, e.g. where you may want to "price up" £11.something to £12 on a Family card so as to obtain discounted child tickets) but if you select the option that many have to buy a ticket for travel at a different time it will let you.

Including typically not allowing trains that depart at a valid times unless you purchase the ticket so late that the train has either already departed, the platform has been blocked off (e.g. Euston) or it's not possible to get to the platforms in time.

The rail industry isn't exactly customer-focussed (!)

 

[LlanishenBull]

Seems to me a more sensible approach from Northern would have made the customer pay the excess and or full fare and, instead of straight to court sledgehammer action, send a warning letter to the customer that a repeat offence would result in more serious action.

In this way innocent mistakes do not end up with such ridiculous outcomes and terrible publicity for the rail industry. However people who persistently flout the rules can still be prosecuted.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Seems to me a more sensible approach from Northern would have made the customer pay the excess and or full fare and, instead of straight to court sledgehammer action, send a warning letter to the customer that a repeat offence would result in more serious action.

In this way innocent mistakes do not end up with such ridiculous outcomes and terrible publicity for the rail industry. However people who persistently flout the rules can still be prosecuted.

Seems reasonable but sends the mesage that you can take the chance and pay when caught without any further action taking place.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Seems reasonable but sends the mesage that you can take the chance and pay when caught without any further action taking place.

Yep this is the issue with the "be nice and just let them pay the difference" attitude. Why bother paying the full price for the correct ticket when you can buy a cheaper one and maybe get away with it, and if you don't you only have to pay the difference anyway.

 

[Watershed]

Yep this is the issue with the "be nice and just let them pay the difference" attitude. Why bother paying the full price for the correct ticket when you can buy a cheaper one and maybe get away with it, and if you don't you only have to pay the difference anyway.

I think it is more than fair to say the penalty when caught the first time is less serious (if indeed there is one at all). If you're caught a second or subsequent time it's obvious you should know better, so it's fair play for the penalty to be larger.

 

[Howardh]

An exact figure might be difficult to calculate but if you look on other threads you will see Transport Focus have managed to estimate that only 47% is claimed.

So, kind gentleman that I am, I would just round it with TOCs making charity donation for the same amount. It would certainly be an appropriate gesture to meet their moral obligations.

Regarding unclaimed delay repay, I'm gonna be refunded, auromatically, 82p. There's no way if I hadn't been on an advance single so wasn't automatic I would bother to claim that!! Maybe another thread "the smallest amount of DR ever known"??!!

Glad to see the publicity increasing about this ticketing nonsense!

 

[Haywain]

I think it is more than fair to say the penalty when caught the first time is less serious (if indeed there is one at all). If you're caught a second or subsequent time it's obvious you should know better, so it's fair play for the penalty to be larger.

The problem with that is how many times you might have to be caught for someone to be aware that it is the "second" time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with that is how many times you might have to be caught for someone to be aware that it is the "second" time.

Like another thread, this sort of thing falls over on us not having a national ID card so we can never be 100% sure that someone is being honest when they give details, indeed there's a very high chance they are not.

 

[Djgr]

Seems to me a more sensible approach from Northern would have made the customer pay the excess and or full fare and, instead of straight to court sledgehammer action, send a warning letter to the customer that a repeat offence would result in more serious action.

In this way innocent mistakes do not end up with such ridiculous outcomes and terrible publicity for the rail industry. However people who persistently flout the rules can still be prosecuted.

It's stuff like this which leads the general public and politicians to conclude that the whole railway industry is so totally broken that we need to throw it all away and start again.

Like a lot of things in the privatisation game, it proves difficult to get things done, such as sorting out railcard T and Cs, when you are dealing with coordinating a thousand separate organisations (with multiple different objectives) rather than one. Who knew?

 

[LUYMun]

Seems reasonable but sends the mesage that you can take the chance and pay when caught without any further action taking place.

I'd rather have a few wrongdoers getting away with it than have a few innocent people getting slapped with a criminal record.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'd rather have a few wrongdoers getting away with it than have a few innocent people getting slapped with a criminal record.

But it wouldn't be a few wrongdoers. Why would anyone buy the correctly priced ticket when you can just buy a cheaper one and usually get away with it, and for the odd time you do get caught you just have to pay the difference. It would be like not prosecuting shoplifters and instead just saying if you get caught you just pay for what you tried to steal. Madness.

I'm not saying genuine mistakes shouldn't be treated less severally, but I can't support the idea of having literally no consequence for those who don't want to pay their way.

 

[ainsworth74]

But it wouldn't be a few wrongdoers. Why would anyone buy the correctly priced ticket when you can just buy a cheaper one and usually get away with it, and for the odd time you do get caught you just have to pay the difference.

I'm not saying genuine mistakes shouldn't be treated less severally, but I can't support the idea of having literally no consequence for those who don't want to pay their way.

Should someone who buys a route restricted ticket, for instance Middlesbrough to York routed Not Via Darlington, be prosecuted (or PF'd) if they travel via Darlington?

 

[Haywain]

Should someone who buys a route restricted ticket, for instance Middlesbrough to York routed Not Via Darlington, be prosecuted (or PF'd) if they travel via Darlington?

It's entirely possible to have different rules for different situations.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Should someone who buys a route restricted ticket, for instance Middlesbrough to York routed Not Via Darlington, be prosecuted (or PF'd) if they travel via Darlington?

People who buy a child ticket when they are an adult, or doughnut (buy tickets for the start and finish but not their whole journey), or who buy an off peak ticket intending to use it on a peak train they know it isn't valid for, or buy a railcard ticket for use when they don't have a valid railcard shouldn't be just allowed to pay the difference because you then have no reason for anyone to buy the correctly ticket in the first place. I don't think such a view is that controversial and is why fare evasion is treated more harshly than just "pay the difference" in the first place.

Should someone who buys a route restricted ticket, for instance Middlesbrough to York routed Not Via Darlington, be prosecuted (or PF'd) if they travel via Darlington?

Why did they buy that ticket and travel a different way?

Was it because of disruption - no issues at all and shouldn't need an excess.

Was it because they changed their mind on their plans - excess before boarding if possible and of it isn't possible excess om board.

Was it because they made a genuine mistake or were confused - excess on board (or even give a bit of leeway and allow travel as is).

Was it because they knew they were always going to travel on the more expensive route but thought they could sneak by and get a cheaper ticket - absolutely penalty fare and maybe prosecute.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's entirely possible to have different rules for different situations.

Oh I agree but I'm not sure that it's materially a different situation.

People who buy a child ticket when they are an adult, or doughnut (buy tickets for the start and finish but not their whole journey), or who buy an off peak ticket intending to use it on a peak train they know it isn't valid for, or buy a railcard ticket for use when they don't have a valid railcard shouldn't be just allowed to pay the difference because you then have no reason for anyone to buy the correctly ticket in the first place. I don't think such a view is that controversial and is why fare evasion is treated more harshly than just "pay the difference" in the first place.

Yes I would broadly agree with all of that though I question how you know if someone bought an Off-Peak ticket intending to use it on a Peak time train!

Why did they buy that ticket and travel a different way?

Was it because of disruption - no issues at all and shouldn't need an excess.

Was it because they changed their mind on their plans - excess before boarding if possible and of it isn't possible excess om board.

Was it because they made a genuine mistake or were confused - excess on board (or even give a bit of leeway and allow travel as is).

Agreed broadly with those as well but...

Was it because they knew they were always going to travel on the more expensive route but thought they could sneak by and get a cheaper ticket - absolutely penalty fare and maybe prosecute.

How do you tell that from someone who made a genuine mistake or changed their plans?

I really don't see why it's so objectionable to excess someone who has fallen foul of the minimum fare rule to the correct ticket. If they've applied a discount they're not entitled to 100% throw the book at them via at the very least a PF. If they're on an child ticket but are an adult? Book. Doughnuting? Also book. Don't have a ticket at all and there was a suitable opportunity buy before travel? Believe it or not, but also book! We're not talking about a fare dodgers charter here.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I really don't see why it's so objectionable to excess someone who has fallen foul of the minimum fare rule to the correct ticket.

So why would anyone who has a railcard that is affected buy the proper full priced ticket given they'd know that most of the time they'd get away with saving money by buying that invalid ticket, and on the odd chance they do get caught it's just the difference they'd have to pay.

To me thats no less fare evasion than any of the other things I mentioned and so should be dealt with in the same way.

 

[ainsworth74]

So why would anyone who has a railcard that is affected buy the proper full priced ticket given they'd know that most of the time they'd get away with saving money by buying that invalid ticket, and on the odd chance they do get caught it's just the difference they'd have to pay.

To me thats no less fare evasion than any of the other things I mentioned and so should be dealt with in the same way.

Because most people aren't, in fact, out to avoid their fare? If the odds are so low that they'll get "caught" why would they bother buying a fare at all?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Because most people aren't, in fact, out to avoid their fare? If the odds are so low that they'll get "caught" why would they bother buying a fare at all?

Because that is actually dealt with more harshly when they do get caught. So the risk is great enough that it more than overtakes the reward. That's the whole reason ticketless travel is often dealt with in that way, if it wasn't, and you could just buy on board without any penalty, a significant number of people would chance it. Hell that is what you do see in places that are still fairly light on that despite having opportunities to buy beforehand (I've seen it many times on the south Wales valley lines since the rollout of ticket machines or the local Severn beach line in Bristol).

 

[ainsworth74]

Because that is actually dealt with more harshly when they do get caught. So the risk is great enough that it more than overtakes the reward. That's the whole reason ticketless travel is often dealt with in that way, if it wasn't, and you could just buy on board without any penalty, a significant number of people would chance it. Hell that is what you do see in places that are still fairly light on that despite having opportunities to buy beforehand (I've seen it many times on the south Wales valley lines or the local Severn beach line in Bristol).

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree to be quite honest.

Clearly you're not going to change your mind and I'm not going to change mind that it's bonkers that the industry and others think it's sustainable to criminally prosecute people over £1.90.

Personally I think this is ludicrous and is going to damage the industries already dreadful reputation and harm the bottom line. Young people should be a key target for encouraging to travel by train. This is shooting ourselves in the foot for the sake of £1.90 just in case someone is trying to dodge a miniscule fare in the grand scheme.

 

[simonw]

The offender was taken to court because he didn't have the correct ticket and refused to pay the penalty for not having the correct ticket.

No sympathy from me and clearly none from the court.

 

[Howardh]

It's entirely possible to have different rules for different situations.

That sentence sums everything up. So many different rules and restrictions and with very little national consistency.

How is the average irregular rail user supposed to trawl through it all? Or even a foreign visitor with just a basic grasp of English?

 

[Peter0124]

No idea why the minimum fare thing even exists in the first place. Or why it would be 10am rather than 9am considering 9am is usually when the peak hour ends.

 

[signed]

Clearly you're not going to change your mind and I'm not going to change mind that it's bonkers that the industry and others think it's sustainable to criminally prosecute people over £1.90.

Prosecution should have a strict minimum attached, something like £100 evaded... or re-offense before it should happen. It should still happen, but not for such small.

No idea why the minimum fare thing even exists in the first place

Non-specific (like Disabled, Veterans...) Railcards were and are still targeted to leisure travellers, which are price conscious, but most of the time not that time conscious. So if you could, before Covid especially, push as many people out of the peak you could limit the overcrowding and overcharging people is usually a good way to do so.

Now of course post-Covid the landscape has changed a lot