Northern and prosecutions for railcard use before 10am

[BongoStar]

So what would your solution be if someone knowingly purchased a ticket on an app for post 10am and used it before 10am knowing full well they were breaching the T&Cs of their railcard? A simple "ah, silly you, just pay the difference and don't do it again" response from the guard? What next, someone willingly purchasing an off-peak ticket and using it in the morning/afternoon peak, knowing the only comeback will be to be excessed to the correct fare on the odd occasion they get checked by staff? [especially if on a DOO train between two stations without barriers?]

If you read this and the related topic thread on Excessing a railcard bought ticket, you will be told to believe that this doesn't happen regularly. Almost all cases are honest mistakes apparently. And therefore the removal of PF or other sanction would not matter much because instances of such gaming are almost non existent.

 

[Kite159]

If you read this and the related topic thread on Excessing a railcard bought ticket, you will be told to believe that this doesn't happen regularly. Almost all cases are honest mistakes apparently. And therefore the removal of PF or other sanction would not matter much because instances of such gaming are almost non existent.

Probably happens around the same amount as someone only buying a ticket on their device when they see a member of staff checking tickets and being surprised when they are caught out. Must be all honest mistakes, they were simply running late for the train and must have simply forgotten to buy before boarding

 

[LJA]

obvious solution would be to get rid of the minimum fare restriction

Increasingly irrelevant given it doesn’t apply to advances

Of course simplification will probably mean no railcard discounts at all before 10am, rather than the opposite…

 

[JonathanH]

It highlights the ridiculous and counterintuitive nature of the restriction; the railway is perfectly happy to sell railcard discounted Advance tickets before the cut off.

The restriction has existed for many years and frankly it is not counterintuitive. It very successfully avoids a large amount of revenue being cannibalised for short journeys in the morning peak. How do you propose that the railway recovers the revenue it would lose if the minimum fare didn't exist? Would removal of the minimum fare be revenue neutral?

The availability of short distance advance fares on some routes doesn't really mean that the minimum fare should be removed everywhere, any more than the ability to use a 16-25 railcard discount before 0630 and between 0930 and 1000 in the Oyster area suggests the minimum fare should be removed.

 

[daodao]

The simplest and clearest solution would be for no railcard-discounted tickets to be valid before 10am Monday-Friday (at any time of the year and including weekday bank holidays) for any journey, ticket type (of any price, whether advanced or ordinary) or railcard type. This would need to be made clear to customers buying railcards at the time of purchase, and could then be rigorously enforced without ambiguity and the consequences this creates.

 

[AlterEgo]

The restriction has existed for many years and frankly it is not counterintuitive. It very successfully avoids a large amount of revenue being cannibalised for short journeys in the morning peak. How do you propose that the railway recovers the revenue it would lose if the minimum fare didn't exist? Would removal of the minimum fare be revenue neutral?

The availability of short distance advance fares on some routes doesn't really mean that the minimum fare should be removed everywhere, any more than the ability to use a 16-25 railcard discount before 0630 and between 0930 and 1000 in the Oyster area suggests the minimum fare should be removed.

It’s counterintuitive to the customer because the very person who is telling everyone the restriction is easy to follow has questioned which railcard they used to obtain discounts on tickets less than £12 before 10am.

The answer is most of them, including the 16-25, can be used to do that, because obviously the tickets are advances. Well, obvious to us, but not obvious to someone less initiated. Who has questioned “why are these tickets less than £12 then?”.

It isn’t for the customer to try and understand the commercial rationale of the company beyond “do I have to spend a minimum of £12 or not?”

 

[Nottingham59]

So what would your solution be if someone knowingly purchased a ticket on an app for post 10am and used it before 10am knowing full well they were breaching the T&Cs of their railcard?

The first step is that ToC should not endorse such tickets with the words "Any Time".

 

[Unixman]

The simplest and clearest solution would be for no railcard-discounted tickets to be valid before 10am Monday-Friday (at any time of the year and including weekday bank holidays) for any journey, ticket type (of any price, whether advanced or ordinary) or railcard type. This would need to be made clear to customers buying railcards at the time of purchase, and could then be rigorously enforced without ambiguity and the consequences this creates.

As someone with a disabled railcard, which is valid for all times and trains, all I can say is thank you for that suggestion.

 

[yorksrob]

The simplest thing would be to get rid of time restrictions on railcards altogether.

Someone travelling in peak time would still end up paying more anyway.

Genuine fares simplification (which of course the train companies/DfT aren't interested in.

 

[Hadders]

So, in summary, a passenger used a ticket wrongly, refused to engage with Northern in private, let it escalate to a point that prosecution threat had to be used, then went public to offer the same explanation that he was asked to begin with. Northern took those as reasonable and decided no further action will be taken. No different from their response to other cases they believe to be genuine mistakes.

The biggest winner here are ToCs because after this no one can claim complete ignorance on 10am rule for the railcard.

You're conveniently overlooking the fact that the rail industry sold a ticket that said it could be used at anytime on it.

Yes, condition 4 of the railcard terms and conditions does state that there is a £12 minimum discounted fare (although even the wording of that condition isn't exactly clear) but there really should be a reference to the restriction on the ticket itself, or if this genuinely isn't possible, as part of the ticket purchasing process. It becomes even more confusing due to the minimum fare not applying in July and August.

The simplest and clearest solution would be for no railcard-discounted tickets to be valid before 10am Monday-Friday (at any time of the year and including weekday bank holidays) for any journey, ticket type (of any price, whether advanced or ordinary) or railcard type. This would need to be made clear to customers buying railcards at the time of purchase, and could then be rigorously enforced without ambiguity and the consequences this creates.

A 50% increase in rail fares that this would cause for those impacted would not be a good idea.

 

[BongoStar]

It’s counterintuitive to the customer because the very person who is telling everyone the restriction is easy to follow has questioned which railcard they used to obtain discounts on tickets less than £12 before 10am.

Perhaps the person was trying to ascertain whether the railcard being used was a disabled railcard? as that is valid all day anyways.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps the person was trying to ascertain whether the railcard being used was a disabled railcard? as that is valid all day anyways.

It wouldn’t matter if it was. Those are advance fares.

The poster you were replying to seemed to think there was a geographic restriction on discounts too.

It’s really not intuitive if people on a rail specific forum are having misapprehensions.

 

[JonathanH]

The poster you were replying to seemed to think there was a geographic restriction on discounts too.

It’s really not intuitive if people on a rail specific forum are having misapprehensions.

No, I was saying that short distance advance fares only exist on certain routes. The problem of the availability of discounted short distance advance fares confusing 16-25 railcard holders is far more prominent in the area where Northern operate than in the South East, for example.

 

[talldave]

It's quite sad that anyone thinks it's ok to stick with the current ludicrous situation where elements of current month, advance and anytime have to be decoded through some complex algorithm to determine validity. If the customer gets it wrong they end up financially penalised with the potential option for a criminal conviction on top. If TOC staff get it wrong the customer is still likely to get a financial penalty and/or a visit to court followed by weeks/months of stress and agro trying to undo the process. This most certainly won't involve an apology and the staff member concerned will have zero consequences. It's a pathetic situation the industry should be ashamed of; thank heavens for the humiliation that social media can inflict on the dinosaurs running the show.

 

[87electric]

It's quite sad that anyone thinks it's ok to stick with the current ludicrous situation where elements of current month, advance and anytime have to be decoded through some complex algorithm to determine validity. If the customer gets it wrong they end up financially penalised with the potential option for a criminal conviction on top. If TOC staff get it wrong the customer is still likely to get a financial penalty and/or a visit to court followed by weeks/months of stress and agro trying to undo the process. This most certainly won't involve an apology and the staff member concerned will have zero consequences. It's a pathetic situation the industry should be ashamed of; thank heavens for the humiliation that social media can inflict on the dinosaurs running the show.

The dinosaurs are rigging the asylum. Quite so. Any overhaul under the pretence of simplification never ever works in the consumers favour. Quite the reverse and I’m sick of it.

 

[LUYMun]

The purpose, back when this was a student railcard, is to avoid the cannibalisation of revenue for short journeys such as travel to college where it was felt that a discount shouldn't be offered, but allow longer distance journeys to take place and be discounted such as returning home to University in the morning peak after a weekend. It is pretty obvious really.

How dare young people travel locally by train to school/college/university at a discounted rate!

The restriction has existed for many years and frankly it is not counterintuitive. It very successfully avoids a large amount of revenue being cannibalised for short journeys in the morning peak. How do you propose that the railway recovers the revenue it would lose if the minimum fare didn't exist? Would removal of the minimum fare be revenue neutral?

The availability of short distance advance fares on some routes doesn't really mean that the minimum fare should be removed everywhere, any more than the ability to use a 16-25 railcard discount before 0630 and between 0930 and 1000 in the Oyster area suggests the minimum fare should be removed.

What evidence do you have that suggests short distance train travel reduces revenue? If anything, in theory it should encourage more travel while they're at their youth, increasing revenue to balance the hole in the removal of the pre-10am minimum fare.

 

[JonathanH]

What evidence do you have that suggests short distance train travel reduces revenue?

That isn't what I wrote. I said that there would be a revenue shortfall if short distance rail travel in the morning peak became discounted where it is currently paid for a full fare. No one has suggested how this shortfall would be addressed.

If anything, in theory it should encourage more travel while they're at their youth, increasing revenue to balance the hole in the removal of the pre-10am minimum fare.

Isn't the idea that holders of 16-25 and 26-30 railcards are already meant to make more leisure journeys because they have full use of them at off-peak times? Where is the extra travel going to be generated if 'captive' travel becomes cheaper?

How dare young people travel locally by train to school/college/university at a discounted rate!

Was BR wrong when it initially set the terms of the railcard? For what it is worth, those possibly are groups for which it is appropriate to direct subsidy, but I assume that whatever change is made to the 16-25 railcard will need to be changed with the 26-30 railcard as well.

 

[jayah]

Unlike the Post Office scandal, except in a some cases, it will be extremely difficult to separate intentional fraud vs "mistakes". You can just head into the "Disputes" section on this forum to find out how much intentional Railcard fraud occurs.

As usual the generic public will end up paying for it, both via ticket sales and taxpayers in general given Northern's ownership.

There isn't a need to separate.

85(3) of the 1889 Act requires intent, or providing false details. Thereby intent and proof of it is required. If it can't be proven, it isn't covered.

Online buying history and ticket gates, already makes this far easier than it used to be.

But I have no time at all for using the threat of a criminal record, when there isn't intent, as a means to coerce a 'settlement' which is far higher than the PF.

And there are many, many TOCs who have been getting away with this behaviour for years.

 

[LUYMun]

That isn't what I wrote. I said that there would be a revenue shortfall if short distance rail travel in the morning peak became discounted where it is currently paid for a full fare.

You're very persuasive in providing your explanation, but there is a lack of evidence to back up your claim. So the question stands.

No one has suggested how this shortfall would be addressed. [...] Where is the extra travel going to be generated if 'captive' travel becomes cheaper?

There needn't, the discount acts as an incentive for 16-25yo's to make extra journeys during this time, making up for the short fall. Getting to college or university earlier would be one.

Was BR wrong when it initially set the terms of the railcard? [...] whatever change is made to the 16-25 railcard will need to be changed with the 26-30 railcard as well.

The question isn't "was BR was wrong then?", it is "why should we keep the nonsensical minimum fare restriction today?" More people are going to college and university than it was in the BR era, especially those who wish to maintain a working life outside of it and for those starting uni later, in their 20s. Cut them some slack and allow extra journeys to be made with the 16-25 Railcard for their commutes.

 

[quantinghome]

The purpose, back when this was a student railcard, is to avoid the cannibalisation of revenue for short journeys such as travel to college where it was felt that a discount shouldn't be offered, but allow longer distance journeys to take place and be discounted such as returning home to University in the morning peak after a weekend. It is pretty obvious really.

10am rather than 9am or 9.30am, because that captures later starts. 10am actually gives three levels of fare, peak, off-peak and discounted off-peak.

It has been in place pretty much throughout the existence of the railcard and has been £12 for around 15 years.

I can't remember exactly what the minimum fare was back in the 90s (those halcyon days when I was a YP...) but my recollection was it was roughly the same nominal level as it is today. Is the railway that concerned about fare cannibalisation given they've not increased the minimum fare along with general fare inflation since 2009, and possibly a lot earlier?

I note that the 16-17 saver card gives a 50% discount and has no time restriction or minimum fare. Was any calculation of fare cannibalisation carried out for that? What is the logic (in terms of revenue) for giving 16-17 year olds travelling to college a much more generous peak time discount than 18+ students?

Most students commuting to college/university will be doing so in conurbations with ITAs who have their own heavily discounted season tickets for students - in West Yorkshire the monthly all modes student season ticket is 55% of the equivalent full price ticket.

All this leaves me wondering what revenue streams are left for the minimum peak time restriction to protect. 18+ students on relatively short commutes outside the main conurbations? Infrequent journeys within urban areas that wouldn't warrant a season ticket? I can't see that it's actually saving much revenue. The most likely explanation for its continued existence is inertia. There is no logic; it's simply an accumulation of overlapping and contradictory historical restrictions which have stuck to the fare system like barnacles to a ship's hull.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have wondered. Part of the reason for it was I believe to avoid booking office queues due to people who could buy seasons buying daily fares instead. Obviously now most tickets are bought on phones this no longer matters. So if they're not paying much less overall (as they probably aren't)...

 

[Mark J]

It helps, obviously, that Basingstoke and Reading are barriered stations and that now Reading West has its swanky new gates at both ends of the station. I hope Mortimer and Bramley-Hampshire follow suit to close off the big gaps in the line there because ultimately fare evasion hurts us all. I've seen people quizzed about how they got onto the station in the first place by GWR operators and it varies in demeanour, and been a fly on the wall to a lot of challenges by the guards on that service. I've heard all the excuses from phone battery (I offered them a charging lead as sockets were installed on 165s mid way through my commuting career!) to someone jumping the gates at Reading. It's quite illuminating and to be honest, you can tell the difference between someone genuinely caught short and the people who actually did it deliberately. Again, I've been in a fly-on-the-wall sort of career for long enough that you can tell a lot from someone's response to a situation.

GWR and SWR do not help themselves.

Last Sunday, barriers were open at Reading at 8:30pm when I arrived back from Oxford. A time when many local and long distance services are still running.

Yesterday at London Paddington, barriers were open on an IET arrival from Plymouth. This was at around noon!

Not one was ticket checked on train. I got on at Earley, and changed at Reading. If I was that way inclined, could of easily of bagged a free journey to London Paddington and back - as the same situation was in reverse gone 9pm.

From what I can see, barriers are usually unmanned from 8pm on a Sunday. The same at some stations on Saturdays too, Bracknell being one example.

How train companies can get stupid over silly amounts by those that have actually paid something for their journey, yet still actively encourage fare evasion by having open and unmanned barriers, is just a joke.

 

[45107]

I can't remember exactly what the minimum fare was back in the 90s (those halcyon days when I was a YP...) but my recollection was it was roughly the same nominal level as it is today. Is the railway that concerned about fare cannibalisation given they've not increased the minimum fare along with general fare inflation since 2009, and possibly a lot earlier?

During my time working in a Booking Office (BR era, late ‘80s’) it was £3.00 single/£6.00 return before 1800.
I don’t know when the minimum price or time cut-off changed.

 

[FlyingPotato]

GWR and SWR do not help themselves.

Last Sunday, barriers were open at Reading at 8:30pm when I arrived back. A time when many local and long distance services are still running.

Yesterday at London Paddington, barriers were open on an IET arrival from Plymouth. This was at around noon!

Not one was ticket checked on train. I got on at Earley, and changed at Reading. If I was that way inclined, could of easily of bagged a free journey to London Paddington and back - as the same situation was in reverse gone 9pm.

From what I can see, barriers are usually unmanned from 8pm on a Sunday. The same at some stations on Saturdays too, Bracknell being one example.

How train companies can get stupid over silly amounts by those that have actually paid something for their journey, yet still actively encourage fare evasion by having open and unmanned barriers, is just a joke.

I know what you mean

I've seen it many many times when the barriers at Reading are closed on the Southbound entries but open on the Northbound Entries.

I've also never seen Revenue Protection on the Northbound Entries, so people could easily avoid their fare there

 

[Mark J]

I know what you mean

I've seen it many many times when the barriers at Reading are closed on the Southbound entries but open on the Northbound Entries.

I've also never seen Revenue Protection on the Northbound Entries, so people could easily avoid their fare there

I mean where is the incentive to actually do the right thing and purchase a ticket. Especially as prices continue to spiral.

If you travel often enough, you know when barriers are likely to be open and what services you more than likely won't have your ticket checked on.

It just seems the TOCs are chasing after pennies, through errors by largely fare paying passengers. Whilst allowing many, many pounds of lost revenue to flow through unmanned ticket gates and services with no regular active ticket checks.

Yesterday I was able to board a SWR train to Reading without any kind of barrier, or ticket check. Get on an IET to Paddington with again no on board ticket check, then freely walk out at Paddington with open barriers.

The same on the return service at 10pm.

The only time my ticket was checked yesterday was at the barriers of King's X and Paddington Underground stations.

No wonder the railways lose money.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Because it was cheaper and claimed to be valid at any time on any train.

And on a railway system that's perceived as having an incomprehensible ticketing system with a variety of functionally-identical tickets costing different amounts, why shouldn't someone think that an Anytime ticket that costs £4 is different to an Anytime ticket that costs £6?

Yes, the users of this forum may understand the difference, but does every single potential customer?

How do you propose that the railway recovers the revenue it would lose if the minimum fare didn't exist? Would removal of the minimum fare be revenue neutral?

It might actually be revenue positive, if it's able to attract more passengers to the railway than it loses on their tickets. Probably not, but you'd expect some increase.

 

[JonathanH]

It might actually be revenue positive, if it's able to attract more passengers to the railway than it loses on their tickets. Probably not, but you'd expect some increase.

Seems a little bit unlikely that relevant passenger numbers will increase by 50% on the short flows involved, but there could be some increase.

 

[Haywain]

but you'd expect some increase.

Is that an increase in numbers or in revenue?

 

[weeklycommuter]

The Guardian reports that Northern is withdrawing all prosecutions of people accused of using a 16-25 railcard to obtain a discount at the wrong time of day.
However I find it difficult to take seriously their statement “We are actively engaged with government and industry to simplify fares to help customers.”

Northern users may be compensated after rail firm broke fare evasion rules

Prosecutions of passengers accused of using 16-25 railcard for discounts at wrong time of day are being withdrawn

www.theguardian.com

Northern users may be compensated after rail firm broke fare evasion rules
Prosecutions of passengers accused of using 16-25 railcard for discounts at wrong time of day are being withdrawn
Rail passengers could be entitled to compensation after Northern was accused of breaking its fare evasion rules to prosecute commuters.
The train operator said on Monday all prosecutions of people accused of using a 16-25 railcard to obtain a discount at the wrong time of day were being withdrawn and thousands of previous cases reviewed.
The company was criticised for prosecuting young people after they used their railcards in a way that would have saved a few pounds on morning journeys.
Under Northern rules, passengers with a railcard travelling on the wrong train must be offered the chance to pay back the deficit on the spot, the Telegraph reported.
A Northern spokesperson said: “We understand that fares and ticketing across the railway can, at times, be difficult to understand, and we are reviewing our processes for ensuring compliance with ticket and railcard terms and conditions.
“With regard to recent reported cases involving use of the 16-25 railcard with fares under £12 before 10am, we are withdrawing any live cases and will also look to review anyone who has been prosecuted previously on this specific issue.
“We are actively engaged with government and industry to simplify fares to help customers.”

 

[redreni]

The Guardian reports that Northern is withdrawing all prosecutions of people accused of using a 16-25 railcard to obtain a discount at the wrong time of day.
However I find it difficult to take seriously their statement “We are actively engaged with government and industry to simplify fares to help customers.”

Looks like some forum members have been more Catholic than the Pope on the issue of whether Northern were allowed to prosecute without offering the passenger a chance to pay the excess.