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

[Greenback]

Just been on Watchdog. BBC bloke say's East Coast run the Birmingham-Darlo service. :roll:

The BBC really has gone downhill lately! I blame Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand!

 

[reb0118]

A common problem is being booked away from your bike. If I am on TPE I will therefore sit near the bike for obvious reasons. No guard has ever complained about that and if they did I am sure they'd be fine with my explanation! TPE have been most accommodating for example if I do a cycle ride on a circular route and ask if I need another ticket to do a bit of a journey which would have been valid had the former line still exist, I've always been told that I am OK to travel, which I always appreciate very much.

Yes I've always held that view. In my opinion it's not the passengers fault that the railway shut the line - even if it was before the passenger was born. Flexibility wins repeat custom and is good for the business but more than that it helps to keep passengers happy. Happy pax = happy staff.

Simples (we need a new meercat smiley)

 

[Deerfold]

Just been on Watchdog. BBC bloke say's East Coast run the Birmingham-Darlo service. :roll:

You think that's bad?

At http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11420790
they describe him as being treated as a "fair dodger"

Edit: I reported the spelling and accuracy errors to the BBC. They've corrected the spelling but it still says he caught an East Coast service.

 

[yorkie]

"said he was made to feel like a fare dodger" - in his mind he was, what's the problem? It says he said was made to feel that way, and no-one else can say how he feels and he is entitled to feel that way by the absurd actions of the barrier staff.

Let there be no mistake, there's no way the barrier staff would be able to get away with doing that in any other service industry e.g. a hotel or restaurant. If they did, they would not be in employment the next day. (And no, I am not interested in reading replies about how rail travel is different; I know it is different but that doesn't excuse this behaviour)

It is the people who write absurd rules, and those who blindly follow them when it is inappropriate to do so (blindly following a rule when it is clearly inappropriate is not at all sensible whatever people who are obsessed with rules may say!), who have damaged the reputation of the rail industry, not the media.

Yes, inaccuracies should be sorted out, but it is excellent that this story is getting coverage, and you can't change the fact people think it's absolutely wrong for East Coast to have acted in such a way.

Also people saying earlier they'd only do this for a professior and not a family in standard, see my link I posted earlier to the previous GNER cases, e.g. a family boarded at York instead of Berwick, and GNER cancelled their UPFN too.

 

[attics26]

the gateline was open at 2017:40 the prof chose to stay train side and argue finally leaving at 2048 thru no reason but his own after demanding he be served with the reported "fine".

 

[DaveNewcastle]

the gateline was open at 2017:40 . . . .

Very interesting level of detail, thank you.

the prof chose to stay train side and argue

Presumably, this source also indicates the behavioural interactions referred to as well?

thru no reason but his own after demanding he be served with the reported "fine".

It leaves us wondering whether he
a) contrived the outcome in advance (unlikely if there were no 'friendly' witnesses), OR
b) used the situation 'opportunistically' and impulsively delayed his departure unnecessarily in order to get whatever fragments of "evidence" he could get to avoid further payment.
Do we know if he might have undermined his own argument by not staying on the train but instead spending half an hour in the station to argue his point? (Would he have got home quicker by staying on board and then returning? Probably not, but it would be relevant to know!)

 

[daikilo]

Extract from the BBC article:
An East Coast spokesman said: "The terms and conditions of the advance purchase first class ticket, which Professor Evans used, clearly state that breaking a journey en route, or starting from an intermediate station, is not permitted.

If I understand correctly, he was not able to break his journey because the barrier refused to let him out. He then likely tried to surrender his ticket such that he could no longer travel, which I in the English I know does not constitue a "break of journey" but a "termination of journey". Must check the rules to see whether I was wrong, and that an early termination is equivalent to a break.

Just imagine getting fined if you tried to leave a restaurant before eating the dessert of your set meal.

 

[attics26]

his ticket failed to operate the gateline (due to it only being valid at Durham) the gateline staff approached and looked at the ticket advising him why it wouldnt operate the gate and that he should comply with restrictions etc , they then opened the gateline (as usual) for him to leave but by then he apparently had decided he would not be advised by such a lesser mortal than himself and thats why this is now post number whatever on this matter.

 

[Username]

An East Coast spokesman said: "The terms and conditions of the advance purchase first class ticket, which Professor Evans used, clearly state that breaking a journey en route, or starting from an intermediate station, is not permitted

That's either a poor choice of words from an inept spokesman (sadly entirely possible) or a misquote by the BBC (sadly, also entirely possible).

The restrictions are:

"You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary".

Ironically the one contentious point which is central to this scenario is the one stipulation that is left unmentioned.

 

[penaltyfines]

I was travelling on an Advance ticket yesterday, asked the TM if I could get off a stop early, he replied "I don't see why not" while looking at the ticket.

I reminded him that it was an Advance ticket, he said "True - but you'd need to have a *real* jobsworth to pick up on it and want to do anything about it, I shouldn't worry about it".

 

[daikilo]

That's either a poor choice of words from an inept spokesman (sadly entirely possible) or a misquote by the BBC (sadly, also entirely possible).

The restrictions are:

"You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary".

Ironically the one contentious point which is central to this scenario is the one stipulation that is left unmentioned.

Indeed, could have been interesting had it gone to court.

Methinks such a rule (essentially, exclusion of "premature termination of a contractual commitment without financial hardship to the contractor") has been tested before and is invalid. Never ever questionned such a right myself. Indeed, in this case, the professor not being on the train actually meant it burnt less fuel on the Darlington-Durham section hence his action was actually of financial benefit to the contractor!

 

[John @ home]

The debate has now reached the opinion columns of both RAIL and the Daily Telegraph.

I do despair of the railway industry sometimes - and here's a regrettable bit of train operator nonsense. It's another case of a passenger being fined - for getting off a train early when he was on a special cheap fare to the very next station. This was a Daily Telegraph leader, I was horrified to see.

Taken for a ride

When Prof Martyn Evans thought he would get off his northbound train at Darlington instead of Durham, his planned destination, the last thing on his mind was that he was about to commit an offence. After all, he had not actually used all the time on the train for which he had paid (and first class, at that). But the station staff at Darlington would not let him leave until he promised to pay a £155 penalty for alighting at the wrong station. This is not the first time a rail passenger has been fined for getting off early. Will this start a trend? Will restaurants charge more if you fail to order a pudding? Or football clubs exact a premium from disgusted fans leaving before the end of the game with their team trailing 5-0? But at least the low-cost airlines can't follow the railways' example. If one of their passengers leaves early, the penalty is terminal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8028699/Taken-for-a-ride.html

Yes, I know all the arguments about cheap tickets with specific conditions - but that doesn't matter two-hoots when you have the world finding another reason for thinking the railway is populated with out-of-touch idiots. We really don't need this ridicule. Can we not sometimes just do the pragmatic thing - and turn a blind eye?

My only disagreement with Nigel Harris is on the final few words regarding turning a blind eye. 99% of railway workers would have ensured that Prof Evans encountered no difficulty, but in the fragmented railway industry there will always be the occasional event where common sense is not applied.

These events will damage the industry as long as it has rules which are unable to command public support. If the railway industry does not act of its own accord to get rid of these ridiculous rules, then another body will do so for them, using words that the railway industry would not have chosen.

 

[Squaddie]

Our ticketing system is a mess. It needs a complete overhaul and should, in my opinion, work like those in countries such as Switzerland and Japan, where there is just one fare between two stations, dependent solely upon distance (with the exception of supplements for high-speed and other special trains). A return costs twice as much as a single, and first class costs 50% more than second class.

If the TOCs were to get rid of the ridiculously cheap and ridiculously restrictive Advance tickets they could lower the price of standard walk-on tickets to the level of an off-peak saver and everyone would benefit.

 

[Mojo]

We have had this discussion before that implementing a "simpler" system would be almost impossible due to the various routes a train could possibly take, especially when there are loop lines involved, and would disadvantage a huge number of passengers.

It is important that Tocs are able to adequately manage demand through prices, and that is why Advance and Off-peak tickets are important.

 

[Squaddie]

We have had this discussion before that implementing a "simpler" system would be almost impossible due to the various routes a train could possibly take...

Why?

In Switzerland (sorry to keep mentioning that country, but I spend most of my time and do most of my rail travel there these days) there is almost always a choice of routes between two places (Swiss railway map - bear in mind that this is a country just twice the size of Wales) and you specify the route you wish to take when you buy the ticket. If you inadvertently take a route that costs more than the ticket you bought then the ticket inspector very politely asks for the difference in fare. And you can break your journey as many times as you wish between your starting point and your destination, within the period of validity (one day for a single, 10 days for a return).

 

[Deerfold]

"said he was made to feel like a fare dodger" - in his mind he was, what's the problem? It says he said was made to feel that way, and no-one else can say how he feels and he is entitled to feel that way by the absurd actions of the barrier staff.

No, "fair dodger" - that was the spelling mistake the BBC made which they have now corrected. The inaccuracy I referred to was the one about the service being EC instead of XC - this they have not corrected despite it being fairly easy to check.

 

[daikilo]

Our ticketing system is a mess. It needs a complete overhaul and should, in my opinion, work like those in countries such as Switzerland and Japan, where there is just one fare between two stations, dependent solely upon distance (with the exception of supplements for high-speed and other special trains). A return costs twice as much as a single, and first class costs 50% more than second class.

If the TOCs were to get rid of the ridiculously cheap and ridiculously restrictive Advance tickets they could lower the price of standard walk-on tickets to the level of an off-peak saver and everyone would benefit.

NO.

The pricing system is entirely logical and based on potential demand. In the short-haul UK airline business fares are now one-way. The difficulty with trains is that the returns remain and can lead to complications. I would offer a fare based on a fixed outward and an open return, or a variable return supplement if the return is rebooked say 60 minutes before departure.

 

[jon0844]

Just imagine getting fined if you tried to leave a restaurant before eating the dessert of your set meal.

Seeing as this is always used as an example, what if you went to a restaurant that did a promotion on a three course meal for £9.99, but you then only had two courses. Would they be right to charge you the individual prices for the starter and main, which could cost more than the promotional price?

I guess you could order the dessert and then not eat it, but the comparison between the terms and conditions of the ticket (made clear at the outset, or should be) and a restaurant is not exactly the same.

Of course, my opinion is that it's a silly rule and one that should be scrapped as it doesn't actually cost the rail operator anything and as it makes seats/room available there's no negative impact at all.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

A friend I told today was amazed that a Professor was stupid enough not to read the T&Cs beforehand, it is quite clearly stated there, and for someone so intelligent not to bother shows just how much he was inviting this on himself...

 

[jon0844]

Our ticketing system is a mess. It needs a complete overhaul and should, in my opinion, work like those in countries such as Switzerland and Japan, where there is just one fare between two stations, dependent solely upon distance (with the exception of supplements for high-speed and other special trains). A return costs twice as much as a single, and first class costs 50% more than second class.

What about ticketing that takes into account specific train services and routes? Slower, commuter-type trains will be cheaper than faster and more direct intercity services. We may have to revise some definitions of services, and possibly introduce specific naming of fast/stopping services - even from the same TOC. Thus, FCC might have its 'Cambridge Cruiser' train considered as a fast service that attracts a higher fare than the semi-fast. Could that work? I see enforcement issues given a gateline can't know which train you took, but if you were caught on the wrong train then you'd be charged a penalty fare.

You might then issue tickets (which can still be credit card sized) that have the information on them, possibly printed on the reverse (no multiple tickets where people can lose, accidentally or deliberately, the information).

You can still do offers and promotions (advanced fares), and maybe have other ticketing options that may be more flexible (the any permitted types we have today) and it wouldn't be significantly different to what we have now - except to be able to get the details over to the customer in a clearer fashion that isn't open to interpretation or misunderstandings.

It's not hard to print on both sides of a ticket - and you could even give route advice, timetable info (if the customer selects the time they're travelling) and contact numbers etc. If someone is getting a ticket from a TVM, why not print current information on station closures/engineering work that may affect the passenger (e.g. the Victoria Line isn't running all day Sunday, or trains stop early today due to planned engineering work).

 

[daikilo]

Seeing as this is always used as an example, what if you went to a restaurant that did a promotion on a three course meal for £9.99, but you then only had two courses. Would they be right to charge you the individual prices for the starter and main, which could cost more than the promotional price?

I guess you could order the dessert and then not eat it, but the comparison between the terms and conditions of the ticket (made clear at the outset, or should be) and a restaurant is not exactly the same.

Of course, my opinion is that it's a silly rule and one that should be scrapped as it doesn't actually cost the rail operator anything and as it makes seats/room available there's no negative impact at all.

Jonmorris0844: think about it, the timeline may be different but the effect is excatly the same. It is not a silly rule, but one which is ill-thought-out, not workable and with dubious legal substance.

 

[jon0844]

Why is that not a silly rule then?!

I think my question is valid, as restaurants often have promotions with conditions attached. Maybe not so much your local family run restaurant, but go to Pizza Hut or something and see all of the restrictions they have in place.

Are they right to say you can use a discount voucher, but not in conjunction with another offer they're doing, or to restrict dishes you can have on another offer etc?

 

[daikilo]

Why is that not a silly rule then?!

I think my question is valid, as restaurants often have promotions with conditions attached. Maybe not so much your local family run restaurant, but go to Pizza Hut or something and see all of the restrictions they have in place.

Are they right to say you can use a discount voucher, but not in conjunction with another offer they're doing, or to restrict dishes you can have on another offer etc?

Jonmorris0844. Cash is not vouchers.

I have NEVER EVER known a restaurant that will not allow a person to take and pay a preset menu at a fixed cash or voucher price and then delete one or more courses and/or depart before the last course/s, without penalty, such as at probably should have been at Darlington before Durham. Trust me, I do it at least once per month.

As regards yr other coments, I don't know.

That said, if I were you, I would dig into the issue of how close cash is to vouchers with an objective of equality.

 

[yorkie]

A friend I told today was amazed that a Professor was stupid enough not to read the T&Cs beforehand, it is quite clearly stated there, and for someone so intelligent not to bother shows just how much he was inviting this on himself...

Has that friend read the entire National Conditions of carriage and all the validity restriction codes for every ticket they ever have bought? If so, I assume they'd be interested in rail travel enough to join this forum?

 

[daikilo]

Has that friend read the entire National Conditions of carriage and all the validity restriction codes for every ticket they ever have bought? If so, I assume they'd be interested in rail travel enough to join this forum?

Yorkie, if you send me the link I will read them and report, beware the eventual consequencses.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Has that friend read the entire National Conditions of carriage and all the validity restriction codes for every ticket they ever have bought? If so, I assume they'd be interested in rail travel enough to join this forum?

In a sense its part of their job - and they are too busy to be on this

 

[jon0844]

That said, if I were you, I would dig into the issue of how close cash is to vouchers with an objective of equality.

Why did you bring this up? I just said that many restaurants (usually chains) have a load of conditions on various offers. I merely made up one example.

The problem here was down to an advance ticket, not just any ordinary open ticket. So, there are still similarities but at the same time, more proof that comparing travelling short on a ticket is NOT the same as leaving a restaurant.

This is why it is probably best to concentrate on the issue itself, and how silly the rule is, than make comparisons to cinemas and restaurants etc.

 

[yorkie]

The rule is silly, it's perfectly legitimate to break your journey on nearly all walk-on tickets. You aren't allowed to do it with Advance tickets, this means that if your Advance ticket involves a walk from Moor St to New St, you are presumably (?) not permitted to enter any retail outlet that is not within the station premises. You are allowed to walk between the two stations but what happens if you deviate from the designated walking route, are you then liable to paying for a new ticket from your origin station? If your friend lived on the way and you had time to pop in for a chat, could an RPI knock on the door and issue you a PF?!

It's a farce and it has been exposed as a farce by the media. Good! The media isn't being anti-rail on this issue. The media is being pro-customer, and I support that. If that upsets some people who are obsessed with following rules that the majority of the public would agree are morally wrong then, quite frankly, good!

If charged, don't pay up, get a UPFN, and then get it cancelled by taking it as high up as you need to go. I don't think you need to involve the media but it can be done if necessary.

 

[ainsworth74]

if you send me the link

Here you go:

National Rail Conditions of Carriage

 

[tony_mac]

there's a bit of a problem in that the last post is quite obviously defamatory, and we don't have the means to verify the claims.
It might be better if it was reworded.....