Professor slapped with £155 railway fine for getting OFF the train one stop early.

[General Zod]

Here we go again. The Daily Mail - Champion of the People !!!!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ailway-fine-getting-OFF-train-stop-early.html

A professor who got off his train one stop before the destination on his ticket was ordered to pay a £155 penalty to leave the station.

Martyn Evans was told he would be fined for disembarking at Darlington, near his home, rather than waiting until Durham, where he works at the university’s philosophy department.

The state-run East Coast train company said ticketing regulations meant he could get off only at the stop he had paid for – and nowhere else.

East Coast has cancelled Professor Evans’s penalty ..

 

[EM2]

Just been through all the comments and 'red-arrowed' all the ones shouting 'Disgrace!'. Very satisfying

 

[cuccir]

Just been through all the comments and 'red-arrowed' all the ones shouting 'Disgrace!'. Very satisfying

Agreed. Unfortunately we're 200-odd down so I don't think we'll make much of an impact...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I notice most of the people on there have invoked Godwin's Law one way or another.
My favourite was this:

On my train home there was a ticket collector acting appallingly to a young girl who appeared to have a valid ticket. Nothing short of what you would expect the SS in Nazi Germany to be like

 

[wintonian]

One of the comments:

After a University open day, my friend, a student finished earlier than expected and instead of taking a seat on a more expensive rush hour train back to London, which she had paid for a month earlier, decided to take an half empty train two hours earlier only to be told to pay for another fare.
Where is the encouragement to take the train, my friend had paid top whack and sometime later a tired commuter would have been pleased for a seat to sit on!
Surely this type of behaviour by Train Companies is having a negative impact on our economy and tourist industry?

Why don't some pepole seem to understand that there is a reason why they are getting a cheap ticket? :roll:

 

[button_boxer]

"Since the issue was highlighted, train company East Coast have now cancelled the fee as a 'goodwill gesture'". On the one hand you can see why they would feel they had to do this, but on the other it's a tacit admission on their part that they don't consider the rules to be fair which might do them more harm in the long run.

 

[penaltyfines]

First - The CoC is clear that a new fare is payable in this instance.

There are however some problems here:

- The article quite rightly points out that information regarding ticket restrictions needs to be much clearer.

- It's in the Ops best interest to make people aware of the restriction, as they may opt for more flexible fares = more revenue. Instead they are losing revenue when this happens and there are no ticket barriers to catch them.

- Actually breaking your journey and then restarting it is definitely getting more value out of it than a single journey - and indeed not allowed as you can't re-join the same timed train. But prohibiting finishing the journey early, and getting less value out of the ticket, seems to be exploiting a loophole in the definition of 'Break of Journey' than actually in keeping with the spirit of it.

- The above point is perhaps why people are confused about the meaning - and why although the CoC is clear, Ops should be upfront about the ticket restrictions; if not for extra revenue, then to avoid the dishonest reputation that articles such as this promote and to encourage people to use trains!

 

[cuccir]

{edited as I repeat much of what is said above, though not the bit about BoJ!)


Indeed: take the east coast website; my favourite for travel and one many people on here chose. When I book some advance tickets it tells me "Valid only on your chosen service.Not refundable.Changeable prior to travel for a fee." This is in italics, Arial, 7.5 font. On the final booking stage, I have to check two boxes: one which agrees to East Coast T&Cs, which relates to the booking engine rather than the purchased ticket, and then a single box in which I agree to the NCoC, which is a 30 page document.

Now on ticking the NCoC I have accepted full responsibility for travel. People should be reading these things but in practice many will not. In particular, they won't go looking to conditions that they might not even suspect would exist.

I just wonder how much PR damage would be avoided if key conditions were presented a bit more obviously, perhaps with a pre-payment page with key conditions and details, and a link to the full NCoC. You have to tick 'I have read and understood the conditions above' and then 'I have read and understood the full NCoC under which my ticket is sold'. It wouldn't stop these situations, but it might well reduce them.

PF - I'm not sure about the BoJ argument there. Being able to finish early gives you a more flexible ticket and thus gives you more value.

 

[yorksrob]

The Daily Mail arguing on the right side for once.

With enough public outcry this ridiculous rule concerning stopping and starting short might be squashed once and for all.

 

[tony_mac]

The NRCoC (that you do agree to) says

You may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) at any intermediate station...

unless

a break of journey is prohibited, in which case the relevant Train Companies will make this clear in their notices and other publications.

and where during that process did you agree to be bound by the additional Advance ticket restriction that you cannot end your journey early? Was it made clear?

 

[MCR247]

The Daily Mail arguing on the right side for once.

With enough public outcry this ridiculous rule concerning stopping and starting short might be squashed once and for all.

It is not a ridiculous rule though

 

[Mojo]

It is not a ridiculous rule though

Why isn't it? You are consuming less than you have paid for and benefitting the Toc by consuming less of their service.

I can however understand why Megatrain/print at home tickets might be restricted to the origin and destination.

 

[yorksrob]

I stand by the arguments that I made on this subject the last time it came up - which was the mega-train example I believe.

 

[MCR247]

Because you have an advance ticket, which is really cheap for a reason. If you don't like it, buy flexible tickets

 

[Mojo]

Because you have an advance ticket, which is really cheap for a reason. If you don't like it, buy flexible tickets

The reason Advance tickets are cheap is to use up capacity on trains which would otherwise be undersubscribed. The whole principle is based on the fact that it is better to have 100 people on a train paying £20 than to have 50 people paying £60. By getting off a train early you are doing nothing which is contrary to the raison d'être of Advance tickets.

 

[tony_mac]

Because you have an advance ticket, which is really cheap for a reason. If you don't like it, buy flexible tickets

that argument would apply if the rule was 'you must stand on one leg throughout your journey'.

it would still be a ridiculous rule.

 

[yorksrob]

Advance tickets exist to fill up trains at unpopular times. If you buy a ticket from A to C you have purchased the right to be on that train over that journey. Choosing not to use the ticket between B and C is logically no different from choosing not to use the ticket between A and C which is why rules restricting stopping and starting short are nonsensicle. They also give train operators the ability to unfairly disadvantage passengers at B.

 

[bnm]

The reason Advance tickets are cheap is to use up capacity on trains which would otherwise be undersubscribed. The whole principle is based on the fact that it is better to have 100 people on a train paying £20 than to have 50 people paying £60.

Really?
100 x £20 = £2000
50 x £60 = £3000



And possibily the best (for comedy value) reply to the Daily Mail story:

You have to stand up to these theives. I rarely use trains. Once in the last 5 years. Time before that you could jump on, if you arrived on the platform as the train was about to leave, and pay the guy who would issue a ticket. So I did just that. The guard was actually standing in the doorway as I jumped on and as the door closed I got my wallet out and asked him to write me a ticket for two stops. He said "That'll be £20 please".

"What?", says I. He then eplained that it was now an offence to get on a train without a ticket. One of the several thousands of scumbag New Labour laws aimed at ripping off the public.

I told him he could have the £20 if he could get it out of my pocket. He didn't take me up on the challenge. He wrote me a ticket at the normal price. Its bad enough that they abolished the single fare ticket. You now have to buy a return ticket even if you have no intention of returning by train. Born of New Labour's contempt for the citizenry.

:roll::roll::roll:

 

[Mojo]

Really?
100 x £20 = £2000
50 x £60 = £3000

Yes, sorry I should have made it clearer, I was trying to make the point by saying you would have additional people (as obviously not everyone on the train will have Apex tickets).

 

[Ferret]

So EC have refunded him then?! This begs the question of why you have the condition there if you're not going to hold customers to it?! Just an unbelievable state of affairs - maybe it'd be better for all concerned if they removed the offending condition altogether!

 

[lm321412]

Here we go again. The Daily Mail - Champion of the People !!!!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ailway-fine-getting-OFF-train-stop-early.html

Typical exaggeration. He broke the T+Cs of the Ticket which makes his fare invalid.

Tbh, East Coast shouldnt of done the goodwill gesture, He would of got his money back by getting his story in the paper! :roll:

 

[Flamingo]

Advance tickets exist to fill up trains at unpopular times.

Not necessarily, in my company advanced tickets are available on most peak-time trains as well (which, IMHO, is ridiculous, but I'm a humble Guard, so my opinion is not asked for).

With enough public outcry this ridiculous rule concerning stopping and starting short might be squashed once and for all.

On the long distance routes I work, certain trains are peak to a certain point, then off-peak beyond this point. This can mean it is significantly cheaper to travel to a stop 20 miles beyond the last "Peak" station. Therefore certain passengers will buy off-peak tickets to Y but only intend travelling to X. The TOC has two choices to protect it's revenue - either charge everybody leaving at X with a ticket to Y (travelling short), or penalise the genuine travellers to Y and Z by making the train Peak all the way (even though they won't be getting home until stupid o'clock or missing last connections if waiting until after 7 to leave London).

I'm interested to know, which would you think is fairer? (bloody stupid answers like "The whole route should be off-peak" or "tickets are too expensive anyway" are not allowed.)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Like the worst-rated comments say on the DM website, its like getting into a contract: you obey and its fine, read the T&Cs and you'll realise. Out of interest do EC have any power to change it or is it dictated by the DfT or ATOC etc?

 

[theblackwatch]

The Daily Mail arguing on the right side for once.

With enough public outcry this ridiculous rule concerning stopping and starting short might be squashed once and for all.

But still quoting rubbish by saying the chap was fined - the fact is no fine was involved in this!

 

[bnm]

....but I'm a humble Guard, so my opinion is not asked for....

But often given nonetheless!

 

[yorkie]

The fact is, he doesn't have to pay a penny.

If you are morally right, East Coast will - eventually, when you speak to the right person - drop the case, and not persue it. I've quoted many other examples. There was also a high profile one on this forum which EC caved in on, that I am aware of, but I can't reveal the details here at this stage, but maybe one day I will.

I am yet to find a single case of East Coast actually pursuing someone through the courts over finishing/starting 'short' (not strictly speaking valid, but daft), or experiencing delays on split ticketing (which is valid but some disagree), or any other issue of a questionable nature. Remember EC boast that they win all cases that they put before the courts. They want to ensure that this record remains intact, and will therefore, I believe persue real fare evaders and not genuine customers.

This guy is a professor and was more bothered about the principle than the cash, so EC were extremely quick to ensure that they didn't persue him. This is hardly surprising.

EC's actions, which ultimately were the right course of action, are of no surprise to me whatsoever, and exactly as I predicted in the previous topic regarding this very issue.

Any guards/barrier staff considering 'apprehending' someone in such circumstances take note and bear in mind that the company will drop the case and give you advice about showing common sense and discretion. That said, certainly the vast majority of guards and, I hope most, barrier staff, act sensibly. It's a minority that cause these sort of headlines, and give bad publicity to their company.

As a good guard here said, when someone asked about starting short (which is very similar, and if anything more enforceable than finishing short), it's not technically allowed, but in reality you should be OK. The rules aren't really intended to prevent people who live near one place and work near another, both served by the exact same train, from benefitting from a lower fare.

But still quoting rubbish by saying the chap was fined - the fact is no fine was involved in this!

True, although it's more than some have been fined for shoplifting. It's not legally a fine, but it's a fine in all but name. If he had refused to pay, and they chose to persue it, they'd have had to take him to court and then only a court could decide whether to fine him. As detailed in earlier threads, the opinion of someone on this forum who has a lot better legal knowledge than me, is that a court would be unlikely to find that a loss had occured to the train company. It is, I would have thought, unlikely that a court would rule that he intended to avoid paying the fare. A a court may well rule that the system of effectively detaining people and preventing them getting off short should be banned, EC do not want to risk such a ruling!

 

[yorksrob]

But still quoting rubbish by saying the chap was fined - the fact is no fine was involved in this!

Journalistic license

 

[Flamingo]

But often given nonetheless!

No point in suffering in silence!

 

[moonrakerz]

They obviously didn't get much response to their "aliens have disabled our nuclear weapons" story !!

 

[yorksrob]

Not necessarily, in my company advanced tickets are available on most peak-time trains as well (which, IMHO, is ridiculous, but I'm a humble Guard, so my opinion is not asked for).



On the long distance routes I work, certain trains are peak to a certain point, then off-peak beyond this point. This can mean it is significantly cheaper to travel to a stop 20 miles beyond the last "Peak" station. Therefore certain passengers will buy off-peak tickets to Y but only intend travelling to X. The TOC has two choices to protect it's revenue - either charge everybody leaving at X with a ticket to Y (travelling short), or penalise the genuine travellers to Y and Z by making the train Peak all the way (even though they won't be getting home until stupid o'clock or missing last connections if waiting until after 7 to leave London).

I'm interested to know, which would you think is fairer? (bloody stupid answers like "The whole route should be off-peak" or "tickets are too expensive anyway" are not allowed.)

If the restriction was removed, the TOC would still be able to offer cheaper tickets to Y and residents at Y would still have the same opportunity to buy them. However, the service provider would have to accept that residents at X would have the same opportunity to buy and use those tickets.

I don't believe it would be right for the TOC to argue that it is loosing revenue as there are presumably only a limited number of these advance fares available anyway. It will have budgeted for a certain number of places on the train to be sold cheaply, what difference is it to them if they go to residents at X or Y.