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

[cuccir]

Tickets inspected by the train porter...that's a new one on me

To be fair, that is part of a quote, rather than the journalist's own wording. Nevertheless, it's a pretty poor article; but also disappointing communication amongst EC staff too.

 

[daikilo]

Here you go:

National Rail Conditions of Carriage

Thanks Ainsworth, exactly which rule did the Professor infringe, pls?

Filed and read the lot, and not sure I can find a clearcut rule he infringed and in particular any qualification re para 4 on penalty fares, which in extenso, he clearly did not. Para 16 is interesting as the second text block is probably not legal as it effectively means the railcompany will attempt to detain the passenger on purely commercial grounds despite the fact that they have paid the fare for the jouney accomplished (try getting to Durham with an approved route on his ticket without passing through Darlington).

Indeed, paragraph E.26 notes (i) may well apply,

 

[yorkie]

He broke a rule that many of us believe is unenforceable, generally not enforced anyway, morally wrong, and quite possibly unlawful (this is untested) that is a term of the ticket. The Conditions of Carriage permit Break of Journey (BOJ), which includes starting/finishing short, unless there is a restriction imposed on the ticket itself.

If he had a walk-on ticket, he would have been entitled to end his journey early at Durham.

FAO SunMoon: please check the email I sent you last night, and reply (via email or PM) ASAP.

 

[daikilo]

He broke a rule that many of us believe is unenforceable, generally not enforced anyway, morally wrong, and quite possibly unlawful (this is untested) that is a term of the ticket. The Conditions of Carriage permit Break of Journey (BOJ), which includes starting/finishing short, unless there is a restriction imposed on the ticket itself.

If he had a walk-on ticket, he would have been entitled to end his journey early at Durham.

FAO SunMoon: please check the email I sent you last night, and reply (via email or PM) ASAP.

Indeed, in my time in revenue collection, it never crossed my mind to prevent a traveller from giving up his ticket to me before the end of its validity on a valid route, thus foregoing a potential right to additional travel.

That said, seems N-E has let him off and thus set a precedent which may lead to a more reasonable pricing structure for e.g. Megabus rail and associated rail operators..

 

[RJ]

This story is being quoted by numerous passengers who feel that they've been done an injustice for various reasons. I don't think the issue is with the terms, it's people making (and acting upon) incorrect assumptions. A completely autonomous decision so why should the terms of an Advance be deemed illegal or ridiculous? I'd rather pay peanuts for a restricted ticket that suits my needs perfectly, than shell out for a more expensive ticket and pay for privileges that I don't need.

 

[yorkie]

That said, seems N-E has let him off and thus set a precedent which may lead to a more reasonable pricing structure for e.g. Megabus rail and associated rail operators..

Why has this particular incident 'set a precedent'? I've quoted previous examples of starting/finishing short, under GNER in around 2007. The precedent has been set long ago, and I predicted this outcome, and it was no surprise to me whatsoever. I know some people are annoyed at that; tough!

The original topic is here (I've linked to it a few times since)

 

[RJ]

It hasn't set any precedent and I wouldn't advise anyone to knowingly break the terms of the Advance ticket and use the story as a defence!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

A legal precedent can only be set in a court of law - nowhere else.

This has not set a precedent, as East Coast are no obligation to follow it, and can change their minds at any time - which will be very likely if they start seeing huge numbers of people doing it.

 

[cuccir]

This story is being quoted by numerous passengers who feel that they've been done an injustice for various reasons.

And herein lies the problem of, firstly, having a condition such as this on tickets and then, secondly, not supporting staff if they enforce this condition. In the eyes of many people the whole situation, rightly or wrongly, reduces the validity of other conditions ("all rail tickets have stupid conditions attached") and/or puts them off using the rail ("I won't understand the complex ticketing and might get fined"). The first creates more trouble for staff who have to deal with people trying to get around ticket restrictions, and the latter reduces the number of people on the rail, which is a shame.

 

[daikilo]

And herein lies the problem of, firstly, having a condition such as this on tickets and then, secondly, not supporting staff if they enforce this condition. In the eyes of many people the whole situation, rightly or wrongly, reduces the validity of other conditions ("all rail tickets have stupid conditions attached") and/or puts them off using the rail ("I won't understand the complex ticketing and might get fined"). The first creates more trouble for staff who have to deal with people trying to get around ticket restrictions, and the latter reduces the number of people on the rail, which is a shame.

Totally agree. "Stupid conditions" create worry and even agressivity with passengers and concern with staff.

Why should a termination short be an issue on a valid route? Did the team working on Megabus fares discount this opportunity?

As regards law, yes, in theory it needs a court to validate, but if the operator chooses to negotiate a specific issue out of court at no cost to the accused it could be considered as an admission that the case is not proved. Note the importance of no cost rather than a negotiated positive fine.

TOCs, I'm sure you would gain credibility points if you came clean on this!

 

[RJ]

Can I just point out that it's not only Advance tickets that have break of journey restrictions? It's not just Advance tickets y'all are attacking, it's a fundamental element in the restrictions system which applies to numerous ticket types depending on the flow.

Is it being suggested that BoJ restrictions on Off Peak/Advance tickets should be completely abolished? Because I'm sure that will never happen as it would be counter productive to both TOCs and passengers like me looking for the best deal for leisure travel.

 

[cuccir]

Can I just point out that it's not only Advance tickets that have break of journey restrictions? It's not just Advance tickets y'all are attacking, it's a fundamental element in the restrictions system which applies to numerous ticket types depending on the flow.

Is it being suggested that BoJ restrictions on Off Peak/Advance tickets should be completely abolished? Because I'm sure that will never happen as it would be counter productive to both TOCs and passengers like me looking for the best deal for leisure travel.

Some people have suggested that I think? I don't know: the problem, for me, in this story is that his new fare was so expensive. To make someone pay £150 for getting off a stop early does not seem proportional. It turns people against the condition in itself, and against using the railways as they are wary of large 'fines'. As for the cheap tickets - I like them, but I'd happily forgo them if walk on fares were made more reasonable.

I agree that by maintaining BoJ restrictions, the TOCs can offer cheaper tickets, which help better deals become available. What I think would probably allow cheap tickets to remain, and maintain an appearance of fairness to the general public, is that if penalties for breaking terms and conditions were more proportional to the 'offence' committed.

How to work that, of course, is awkward. Each type of offence is as unique and varied as the number of available tickets.One way to do it in this instance might be to ask people stopping early to pay for a single for the uncompleted portion of their journey. That way someone getting off a stop early might have to pay a small fee (around £4 in this case), perhaps with a £10 admin slapped on top. £14 - the professor might have been a bit annoyed but he did break the terms and conditions. What I like about this is that someone using a short distance ticket to get through barriers would still have to pay a lot, but someone getting off a stop early because their house is in-between two stations wouldn't.

The problem is, of course, that you'd then have to come up with penalty systems for all possible offences (wrong train, travelling over, travelling peak) which would create a lot of administrative work. If done, though, it might make the system fairer.

 

[MikeWh]

I think one of the problems is lumping break of journey (meaning break and resume later) with starting late or stopping short. Certainly, with advance tickets, it is right to expect the whole journey to be completed in one go. But given the ambivalence to not travelling at all, it is completely wrong to insist that the entire journey is made.

 

[tony_mac]

break of journey restrictions aren't really all that common on off-peak tickets. and they probably aren't legally enforceable because the restrictions are not mentioned at all, unless you ring them to specifically ask, let alone 'made clear'.

until quite recently, last year I think, many TOC websites actually said 'you may not break and resume' your journey on advance tickets - implying that you could start and finish short.

 

[RJ]

So all in favour of offering only SD/SO tickets at their current rates?

 

[Greenback]

Why at their current rates? Why not have a narrower band between the lowest fares and the highest? This would eman that there aren't any tickets betwen london and Penzance for £20, but there wouldn;t be any at £200 either.

(Fares made up for speed!)

RJ, you are constantly defending the current rules. Will you consider that there may be different ways of operating the fares system?

 

[RJ]

Well the offerings I have seen to reform the current system seem to lack any genuine thought or consideration to the economics of railway travel. Suggest something that wouldn't send the profits into terminal decline, exacerbate the current issues of overcrowding/empty seats or cause people to abandon commuting by rail en masse and I will accept that it's better than the current, admittedly convoluted setup.

Suggesting that there only be one type of ticket, free of restriction and penalising all who are travelling for leisure/don't work 9 -5 shows a very elementary understanding of the forces of supply and demand. The current system may not be perfect but it could be much, much worse.

 

[MikeWh]

I really can't see what all the fuss is about. I would imagine that 99.9% of all advance tickets sold are used exactly as booked. Of the 0.1% that aren't, maybe 99% are changed on the +connections bits that cannot easily be policed, if at all. All the railway needs to do is remove the restriction about starting late and stopping short. Break of journey (break and resume later) is still a complete no-no. You could restrict the window where starting/stopping short is acceptable to say the end 5% of the journey or the first/last stop whichever is further. Anything more dramatic than that needs to be handled by changing tickets as it currently should be.

Now is someone going to seriously tell me that the PFs issued to the 0.01% of people that get caught out is going to seriously damage the railway finances? The time taken to process these PFs could be better spent going after real fare dodgers.

With an advance ticket you will still be tied to a particular train on a particular day for the majority of your journey. The minor flexibility conceeded by allowing starting/stopping short will stop the ridiculous headlines caused by the over-zealous application of the current rules.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . What I think would probably allow cheap tickets to remain, and maintain an appearance of fairness to the general public, is that if penalties for breaking terms and conditions were more proportional to the 'offence' committed.

. . . .
One way to do it in this instance might be to ask people stopping early to pay for a single for the uncompleted portion of their journey. That way someone getting off a stop early might have to pay a small fee (around £4 in this case), perhaps with a £10 admin slapped on top. £14 - the professor might have been a bit annoyed but he did break the terms and conditions. What I like about this is that someone using a short distance ticket to get through barriers would still have to pay a lot, but someone getting off a stop early because their house is in-between two stations wouldn't.

Probably the most sensible and constructive post on this subject of stopping short!

Yes, there are details to be considered further, but there are mechanisms to make Advance tickets work effectively for both the TOCs and their passengers. cuccir's suggestions are a welcome addition to those considerations.

Well the offerings I have seen to reform the current system seem to lack any genuine thought or consideration to the economics of railway travel.

I disagree - the above simple policy for managing stopping short on an Advance ticket (and as discussed on other thread(s) is informed by both though and consideration of the economics - it also (again in other threads) may be more compatible with the legislative framework than the prosecution of a passenger stopping short.

. . . All the railway needs to do is remove the restriction about starting late and stopping short. Break of journey (break and resume later) is still a complete no-no.

I think we're agreed, there.

 

[Greenback]

Well the offerings I have seen to reform the current system seem to lack any genuine thought or consideration to the economics of railway travel. Suggest something that wouldn't send the profits into terminal decline, exacerbate the current issues of overcrowding/empty seats or cause people to abandon commuting by rail en masse and I will accept that it's better than the current, admittedly convoluted setup.

Suggesting that there only be one type of ticket, free of restriction and penalising all who are travelling for leisure/don't work 9 -5 shows a very elementary understanding of the forces of supply and demand. The current system may not be perfect but it could be much, much worse.

I agree, it could be much much worse. But I also think it copuld be so much better! There are a lot of very knowledgeable people on the forum, surely, we can all colelctively come up with a system that will not cost the TOC's revenue, will be less confusing for ordinary people (ie iregular travellers, who don;t have an interest in railways!) and will not lead to ridiculous headlines form the anti railway sections of the media!

 

[yorkie]

...will not cost the TOC's revenue....

Impossible at present as the revenue data is a closely guarded secret. We could never come up with something to match figures that are a mystery to us.

To be honest, the system pre-Privatisation would have been fine. This is, largely, the same basic system used today, but it has been misused/abused.

Examples of how it has been abused include:

-Many more restriction codes, making it very difficult to know what "Off Peak" means
-Ticket type that was valid at 'Anytime' for all non-London area journeys generally renamed "Off Peak"
- Super [Off Peak] withdrawn, [Off Peak] renamed Super Off Peak, higher priced Off Peak introduced. This was to avoid breaking the law on so-called fare "protection" which is totally ineffective.
- TOC specific fares causing confusion & expense (wouldn't be a problem if they could be excessed)
- Price increases at different rates for neighbouring flows depending on TOC that owns the fares
- Allowing ATOC to effectively act as a regulator
- Allowing the RG to be so difficult for 'joe public' to understand
- Allowing the NRCoC to be so difficult for 'joe public' to understand
- Move from walk-on travel to airline-style yield management pricing on longer distance routes
- Unfair/unenforceable ticket terms due to ATOC setting the rules.

It would have been relatively easy to prevent many of these problems occurring if things had been done differently in 1994. But now it is difficult to fix many of these problems, but not impossible.

 

[Greenback]

Impossible at present as the revenue data is a closely guarded secret. We could never come up with something to match figures that are a mystery to us.

To be honest, the system pre-Privatisation would have been fine. This is, largely, the same basic system used today, but it has been misused/abused.

Examples of how it has been abused include:

-Many more restriction codes, making it very difficult to know what "Off Peak" means
-Ticket type that was valid at 'Anytime' for all non-London area journeys generally renamed "Off Peak"
- Super [Off Peak] withdrawn, [Off Peak] renamed Super Off Peak, higher priced Off Peak introduced. This was to avoid breaking the law on so-called fare "protection" which is totally ineffective.
- TOC specific fares causing confusion & expense (wouldn't be a problem if they could be excessed)
- Price increases at different rates for neighbouring flows depending on TOC that owns the fares
- Allowing ATOC to effectively act as a regulator
- Allowing the RG to be so difficult for 'joe public' to understand
- Allowing the NRCoC to be so difficult for 'joe public' to understand
- Move from walk-on travel to airline-style yield management pricing on longer distance routes
- Unfair/unenforceable ticket terms due to ATOC setting the rules.

It would have been relatively easy to prevent many of these problems occurring if things had been done differently in 1994. But now it is difficult to fix many of these problems, but not impossible.

I agree fully with those examples! They summarise perfectly the major problems of travelling by train today! Maybe we don't have the actual figures, but I;m sure it's not beyond the realms of possibility to come up with a system that could be revenue neutral if implemented with the correct levels of pricing?

Mind you, I'm very conscious of the seemingly impossible task of getting agreement on a revenue neutral national railcard, which would be relatively simple compared to a new ticketing system, so I am probably being over optimistic!

 

[yorkie]

SunMoon did not reply to my email asking him to re-word his post; it therefore remains deleted. If SunMoon reads this and wishes to comment further, please contact me.

I invited Prof Evans to reply to this topic, here is his response.

I am the passenger whose penalty fare has been so widely reported recently. I would like to make two points in response to allegations in a recent posting on this Forum.

First, at at no time during the discussion at Darlington Station was I offered the opportunity to leave the station other than by means of either (1) paying the penalty on the spot, or (2) accepting an unpaid fare notice, or (3) having the police summoned. In particular I categorically DID NOT at any time refuse to leave the station. On the contrary, I wished very much to leave the station from the moment of my arrival until I reluctantly accepted option (2), the unpaid fare notice. Until that time I was unable to leave because I was detained – lawfully or otherwise – by station staff. A recent posting to the contrary on this Forum, in which a seven-point summary was given purporting to show that I somehow engineered the whole thing, was categorically untrue in its conclusions and untrue in every detail (other than the obvious fact that my ticket was rejected as invalid). Given all the circumstances, I found this posting also to be extremely offensive.

Second, I understand that an earlier and still more offensive version of that posting, since withdrawn, actually suggested I had bullied station staff. Again, this is categorically untrue. In fact I told both members of the station staff directly that I recognised that they were only doing their jobs. I made the same point in a telephone conversation with senior East Coast managers, emphasising that I took issue only with Company policy and that I wished no adverse consequences to befall the station staff. I have said clearly in at least three media interviews – and I would like to declare here – that I sympathise with station staff who are doing a demanding job in difficult circumstances. Those circumstances are made more difficult for them, as well as for passengers, by their being required to implement unreasonable, incomprehensible and frankly indefensible restrictions and penalties. Sadly in only one of the three interviews did my comments to this effect make it on air – this was a live interview on LBC Radio. In the case of the other two interviews these views were edited out.
​

Committing oneself to a particular train and seat on an advance ticket is a reasonable restriction which anyone can understand. Being imprisoned on a train until one’s final destination is wholly unreasonable and no-one I have encountered can understand it. I doubt it is even lawful, and perhaps it is time this was tested in the courts. Be that as it may I will continue to urge reform of unreasonable policies or practices, and I will continue to do so in a manner that is, I hope, respectful of and sympathetic towards hardworking station staff who have not chosen the policies that they are required to implement.

 

[Ferret]

Yorkie, thanks for sharing that with us. What a reasonable & rational man he seems! he's grasped the root cause of the problem and wishes some good to come of it - don't we all! I've had people start short on an Advance ticket a few times - and I have to admit I completely ignored the issue, my reasoning being that my time would be better spent seeking people who had not paid any form of fare rather than getting into a lengthy argument over a daft restriction that to my mind shouldn't even exist. I don't blame the staff involved in this case as they've been told to enforce these restrictions - maybe we'll see some common sense here now. Professor - if you're reading this, well done for the way you've dealt with this issue.

 

[flymo]

An erudite, comprehensible post. Thanks for putting it up. This shows both sides of the story, and the advantages and pitfalls of advance tickets from both sides. (to me anyway)

 

[John @ home]

Well done, yorkie! Why did none of the rest of us think of contacting the passenger directly?

 

[nedchester]

Well done, yorkie! Why did none of the rest of us think of contacting the passenger directly?

+1

Prof Evans' response is excellent and explains in detail his version of events. Well done to both Yorkie and Prof Evans.

 

[Greenback]

I agree 100% with Ferret, flymo, John@home and nedchester. Prof Evans has provided an excellent response in which he demosntrates that he understands the demands and difficutlies of the staff placed in such situations.

I hope some good does come out of this incident.