Should my daughter appeal this PFN,...

[RJ]

Appealing on a technicality is a waste of time, especially if you have already paid up. IRCAS couldn't give two hoots about errors written on the notice and will send you a letter saying that they won't uphold the appeal as you didn't produce a valid ticket. They've done this to me more than once - sent them a few home truths in the post which I'm keenly awaiting the response.

As for the ticket price, well a single from London Terminals to Bushey is £7.50 as is a single from Glasgow Central to Edinburgh, but it doesn't mean that FCC make any money from it. A fare is a valid ticket at an appropriate price. If both of those criteria have not been fulfilled then the fare hasn't been paid. Besides, I'm sure FCC make nothing at all from a Shortlands to London Terminals ticket.

That said, I use Denmark Hill station and ask for a ticket to St Pancras. So far, I've been sold a ticket to London Terminals every time, so I make the clerk cancel it and issue me with the ticket I want. Same price but not the same validity. However, if I travelled on that ticket and the same thing as described by the original poster happened to me, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would raise merry hell if FCC tried that PF/prosecution nonsense on me.

 

[yorkie]

Revenue allocation & distribution does not determine validity though, it just muddies the waters. It may be used as an excuse to somehow morally justify FCC are carrying out what they do, but in terms of validity it has no relevance.

London to Bushey & Glasgow to London are not comparable with this scenario. The ticket could have been made into a valid ticket with a £0 excess, unlike the other examples. Look at this way if the passenger had done the same journey on a TOC such as Northern or TPE they would probably have been issued a £0 excess.

I don't think either point is helpful.

The last point is helpful and relevant to anyone reading this discussion who is in a similar situation to the OP, but bought their ticket from a ticket office (or, from a TVM if the TVM incorrectly printed London Terminals after selecting Farringdon - I have no idea if any TVMs do that or not).

 

[RJ]

Revenue allocation & distribution does not determine validity though, it just muddies the waters. It may be used as an excuse to somehow morally justify FCC are carrying out what they do, but in terms of validity it has no relevance.

London to Bushey & Glasgow to London are not comparable with this scenario. The ticket could have been made into a valid ticket with a £0 excess, unlike the other examples. Look at this way if the passenger had done the same journey on a TOC such as Northern or TPE they would probably have been issued a £0 excess.

I don't think either point is helpful.

The last point is helpful and relevant to anyone reading this discussion who is in a similar situation to the OP, but bought their ticket from a ticket office (or, from a TVM if the TVM incorrectly printed London Terminals after selecting Farringdon - I have no idea if any TVMs do that or not).

In general, perhaps. In this specific situation, the OP and subsequent posters have incorrectly stated that FCC haven't lost any money as the price is the same. This is a misconception that needs to be addressed before any appeal goes through. I hope it makes sense to the lay traveller that FCC gets paid what they're owed if a ticket is correctly issued to Farringdon, whereas they don't if it isn't.

I personally think that the situation with London Thameslink/named stations/London Terminals is a bit rubbish as probably a lot of passengers and the greater majority of retail staff not working on the MML/Sutton loop do not have a full understading of what's what with regards to the situation in that part of the world. However, FCC have a right to collect their dues and I'm sure it's advertised to passengers. I commuted to Farringdon for three years and recall an A1 sized poster at the barriers stating in no uncertain terms that tickets to/from London Terminals were not valid there.

I mean, look at St Pancras International;

Approaching from the south: Ticket to St Pancras International required
Approaching from the north: Ticket to London Terminals required if travelling from Wellingborough or beyond or off line of route
Approaching from the north: Ticket to London Thameslink required if travelling from any station between Bedford and Kentish Town
Travelling north from STP: Ticket from London Terminals required regardless of destination
Travelling south from STP: Ticket from St Pancras International required

So as you can see, it's as clear as mud to anyone traversing this line or issuing a ticket from a ticket office not on this route, what ticket should actually be issued. Of course, the situation changes if the station in question is Farringdon, or City Thameslink.

If I wasn't so burdened with exams at this moment in time then I'd play more of an active role in helping to get this quashed but I'm sure there are many capable members who have time to do so at the moment!

 

[PhilipW]

I must admit that I wanted to go to Faringdon but had found out that the fare to St Pancras, Blackfriars, London Bridge etc was exactly the same, I may well have bought a ticket to London Terminals thinking that it would give me a bit more flexibilty and allow me sometimes to get off or come back from a different status.

In buying such a ticket I would not have thought that I was cheating anyone or acting immoral in any way. As it turns out I may have been contravening some technical point in the National Carriage Conditions, but I would not have known that. I've never read them in my life, I doubt if I ever will do. I think I am in good company with 99.999% of rail travellers. I do rely on a bit of common sense .... but that seems to be the problem.

Ah well ...

 

[IanD]

It's fine having a poster at Farringdon saying London Terminals tickets are not valid to there but by the time you read it it's too late. What is needed is a sign at Shortlands saying a London Terminals ticket is not valid to Farringdon (or better still listing what stations it is valid to). TVMs could also be programmed to flash up which stations a London Terminals ticket is valid to.

 

[neilmc]

she should go to the media.

Even if she still doesn't win her money back or even get an apology, FCC managers will then have to spend more on the case than what they have cheated her out of, and hopefully get a thorough kicking from the press (again!)

 

[bnm]

Appealing on a technicality is a waste of time, especially if you have already paid up.

That's as maybe. But each appeal costs the TOC who issued the PF a fixed sum.

 

[neilmc]

That's as maybe. But each appeal costs the TOC who issued the PF a fixed sum.

Good. They should be deluged with appeals, then deluged with adverse media publicity if the appeal is not upheld. These shabby and dishonest tactics should be held to the spotlight and made counter-productive.

 

[Wolfie]

That's as maybe. But each appeal costs the TOC who issued the PF a fixed sum.

...not to mention their own staff costs etc...

They might be less keen if every PF cost them money!

How long before the TOCs ask DaFT to institute a charge to make a PF appeal.......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good. They should be deluged with appeals, then deluged with adverse media publicity if the appeal is not upheld. These shabby and dishonest tactics should be held to the spotlight and made counter-productive.

For cases such as this I agree. However, I do also believe that Penalty Fares do actually serve a useful purpose.

 

[b0b]

This is a simple problem to fix. PFNs (or prosecution even) should not be allowed where the excess is less than or 0. It seems that's basic common sense.

 

[RJ]

I must admit that I wanted to go to Faringdon but had found out that the fare to St Pancras, Blackfriars, London Bridge etc was exactly the same, I may well have bought a ticket to London Terminals thinking that it would give me a bit more flexibilty and allow me sometimes to get off or come back from a different status.

In buying such a ticket I would not have thought that I was cheating anyone or acting immoral in any way. As it turns out I may have been contravening some technical point in the National Carriage Conditions, but I would not have known that. I've never read them in my life, I doubt if I ever will do. I think I am in good company with 99.999% of rail travellers. I do rely on a bit of common sense .... but that seems to be the problem.

Ah well ...

It's one of those situations where inventing your own rules on the validity of a ticket can get you into trouble - after all, it's not documented anywhere official that Farringdon is a London Terminal. If you want that flexibility, you can have it, but you'd have to have a valid ticket. Whether that be an Oyster Card, a Travelcard or even an Anytime Day Return to the relevant Underground Zones, which costs a bit more but offers a lot more in terms of flexibility.

This is a simple problem to fix. PFNs (or prosecution even) should not be allowed where the excess is less than or 0. It seems that's basic common sense.

It might seem like common sense to you but it'd cause more problems than it'd solve.

 

[AeroSpace]

Very few London commuters would be able to name which central London stations are considered "London Terminals". The information is not readily available and certainly not displayed at stations.

Third result from a google search for "London Terminals" is here:

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/crossing_london.html#terminals

which explains things fairly clearly.

 

[dar2008]

Third result from a google search for "London Terminals" is here:

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/crossing_london.html#terminals

which explains things fairly clearly.

Exactly, in order to find out this information, you need an internet connection and to know how to use Google. You and I are ok with that, but is everyone (my mother for example would have a clue)? And would you have 'known' all of those stations were London Terminals without reading that website?

I personally think every suburban station around London should have posters clearly displaying this information.

 

[Oswyntail]

I....
It might seem like common sense to you but it'd cause more problems than it'd solve.

I do hope you are going to expand on that.

 

[RJ]

Exactly, in order to find out this information, you need an internet connection and to know how to use Google. You and I are ok with that, but is everyone (my mother for example would have a clue)? And would you have 'known' all of those stations were London Terminals without reading that website?

I personally think every suburban station around London should have posters clearly displaying this information.

In the specific case of this thread, it would appear that the original poster has access to those things. As Farringdon is not a terminal by any stretch of the imagination, then it defies logic that it falls under the London Terminals umbrella. Other stations do defy this logic indeed but they are exceptions rather than the rule.

People seem to make a choice not to ask for or select the station they are travelling to. As far as I can see, it's based upon an unsubstantiated and illogical assumption. If you know you're going to and returning from Farringdon, what's wrong with selecting Farringdon as the destination? Does this defy common sense or something? Back when I was 16 in 6th Form and I knew nothing about tickets, I worked in Farringdon and always thought it made sense to select Farringdon as the destination from the machine, so it's not as if I don't practice what I preach.

If people are going to make an assumption which has never been the case in reality, then they should accept the consequences if the assumption turns out to be wrong. FCC are taking a harsh stance on those who are unnecessarily depriving them of revenue so people ought to help themselves by buying a ticket to the correct destination.

Of course, if the ticket was sold by a member of staff to whom it was made clear that Farringdon was the destination then that's a different matter, but it has not been mentioned so far.

 

[Oswyntail]

..... Other stations do defy this logic indeed but they are exceptions rather than the rule......

Exactly. But as one of the exceptions is City Thameslink, it is understandable that confusion might apply in the case of the next station up the line. Another exception is Old Street, which also appears to have no separate justification.
Looked at another way, one could conceive the main termini in London as forming a ring. Within that ring, I can think of only four mainline non-terminal stations. Of those, only Farringdon is not treated as a "London terminal"

 

[RJ]

Exactly. But as one of the exceptions is City Thameslink, it is understandable that confusion might apply in the case of the next station up the line. Another exception is Old Street, which also appears to have no separate justification.
Looked at another way, one could conceive the main termini in London as forming a ring. Within that ring, I can think of only four mainline non-terminal stations. Of those, only Farringdon is not treated as a "London terminal"

That's just overcomplicating matters. I maintain that selecting the correct destination is a simple and logical choice. If people want to try and find clever ways to get extra validity, that's their own decision and the onus is on them to be pro-active in checking whether or not it's permissible.

For journeys within London, we have the added "luxury" of only Anytime tickets or Off Peak Travelcards being available from machines at appropriate times so we're one step removed from the complex world of time restrictions. Therefore, it should be even easier to select the correct ticket.

That's not to say that I don't fully understand where you're coming from and appreciate the point that you're making.

 

[dar2008]

RJ, I think you do an excellent job as Devil's Advocate

In my daughters defence, we live in a part of London with lots of local railway stations serving different lines into London. We would choose one station if going to say London Bridge and Charing Cross, another if going to Victoria and yet another different station if going to Blackfriars, City Thameslink etc.

It is 'normal' in our part of London for people to buy a 'London Terminals' ticket. Of course hindsight is wonderful and I'm sure RJ will be delighted to hear that my daughter is now buying her ticket to Farringdon as is the 'correct' thing to do. My gripe in this instance is that the inspector could and in my opinion should have shown 'appropriate discretion'.

 

[snail]

In the specific case of this thread, it would appear that the original poster has access to those things. As Farringdon is not a terminal by any stretch of the imagination, then it defies logic that it falls under the London Terminals umbrella. Other stations do defy this logic indeed but they are exceptions rather than the rule.

People seem to make a choice not to ask for or select the station they are travelling to. As far as I can see, it's based upon an unsubstantiated and illogical assumption. If you know you're going to and returning from Farringdon, what's wrong with selecting Farringdon as the destination? Does this defy common sense or something?

Well said. I could understand someone making the mistake with St Pancras if travelling from the south, or - stretching the point - claiming that because their ticket is valid to St Pancras they can finish short at Farringdon.

The logic of 'London Terminals' is fine except for the Thameslink section. A simple solution would be not to accept any London Terminal tickets to Thameslink stations, but that would cause inconsistencies from places like Gatwick where you can travel to Victoria - an obvious 'Terminal' - or London Bridge (and beyond).

 

[Asian Demon]

RJ, I think you do an excellent job as Devil's Advocate

In my daughters defence, we live in a part of London with lots of local railway stations serving different lines into London. We would choose one station if going to say London Bridge and Charing Cross, another if going to Victoria and yet another different station if going to Blackfriars, City Thameslink etc.

It is 'normal' in our part of London for people to buy a 'London Terminals' ticket. Of course hindsight is wonderful and I'm sure RJ will be delighted to hear that my daughter is now buying her ticket to Farringdon as is the 'correct' thing to do. My gripe in this instance is that the inspector could and in my opinion should have shown 'appropriate discretion'.

He could have, but chose not to. As you have said it is your opinion he should have shown 'appropriate discretion'. Obviously his opinion differed. It has to be said that discretion and use of it seems to create more problems than it solves. Mainly because people assume someone should use it (Discretion is for one to decide of his/her own mind, not off the opinions of others) but more so because once given, it seems people have come to expect it in all instances. I for one don't show discretion unless under the most extreme circumstances where the end result would be beyond unfair. I don't think the PFN in this instance is unfair. Harsh maybe, but not unfair.

 

[dar2008]

I for one don't show discretion unless under the most extreme circumstances where the end result would be beyond unfair. I don't think the PFN in this instance is unfair. Harsh maybe, but not unfair.

Then congratulations, you have successfully been assimilated:roll:

 

[RJ]

RJ, I think you do an excellent job as Devil's Advocate

In my daughters defence, we live in a part of London with lots of local railway stations serving different lines into London. We would choose one station if going to say London Bridge and Charing Cross, another if going to Victoria and yet another different station if going to Blackfriars, City Thameslink etc.

It is 'normal' in our part of London for people to buy a 'London Terminals' ticket. Of course hindsight is wonderful and I'm sure RJ will be delighted to hear that my daughter is now buying her ticket to Farringdon as is the 'correct' thing to do. My gripe in this instance is that the inspector could and in my opinion should have shown 'appropriate discretion'.

Hi,

Unfortuntaely "discretion" in a railway context has a rather specfic range of circumstances in its definition. The appeals service supposedly will only consider those circumstances and the one you have described doesn't qualify, I regret to inform you :cry:

In an idealistic world, yes the inspector could have advised your daughter of the correct thing to do and issued an excess ticket for the additional distance travelled, because it is a very common misconception for one reason or another that London Terminals tickets can be used at Farringdon. However, not all ticket inspectors have ticket machines to sell tickets with and I'm not convinced that the ticket office at Farringdon has the capabilities to issue the relevant excess.

When I was an inspector, I was often lenient with people who made these kind of mistakes and would only correct the mistake, rather than levy any further charges, so long as the passenger was genuine and had a good attutide. Some inspectors like to, or feel compelled to punish mistakes by means of Penalty Fares or prosecution reports which whilst I don't agree is necessary, is something they're within their rights to do.

I also live in South London and ironically, if I'm travelling via London Bridge or Blackfriars, I always buy a ticket to the furthest point I can get away with for the same price, in this instance, St Pancras International. I do this because I already know for sure that I'm allowed to and the capricious nature of my day to day activities might see the extra validity used.

 

[Asian Demon]

Then congratulations, you have successfully been assimilated:roll:

Funny that sarcasm like that generally means that staff are less likely to be lenient or care about the honesty of a mistake made by a passenger.

Every inspector will use their own judgement on how they want to deal with a situation. I for one would have excessed the ticket in such a situation, but would have also made it clear to the passenger where they had gone wrong (sternly if need be). However as stated in my prior comment, the inspector did what he felt was correct. Your opinion on how he should show his 'discretion' is irrelevant.

Had you made such a sarcastic comment as the one above to me, any discretion I may have shown you would definitely be out the window. Might be something to think about. Attitude makes a huge difference in how situations are treated. Tbh the attitude of both staff and passengers generally needs to change. It's not always the big bad railway at fault. Railway staff should try to help passengers in all circumstances but when they feel necessary, deal with issues as your daughter has had in the relevant way. By the same regard, some passengers need to learn some manners and realise that some things in life (such as delays and cancellations) are unavoidable. It would also help if passengers bothered to actually accept when they are in the wrong, not just blame everyone else for their own shortcomings and by the same regard staff should realise that not all passengers are fare dodgers/avoiders and most passengers are patient and forgiving when things go wrong. The 1% ruin it for the majority. Both staff and passengers.

It's not in the best interests for staff and passengers to be rude to one another. Generally tends to bring about situations such as the 'I hate FCC' FB bandwagon (which I've seen harass staff where the staff member has done no wrong to them) and the disdain some railway staff have for the general public (uncalled for as it's a minority at fault).

This is the last comment I will make on the matter. I would just like to say I do hope your daughter is successful in any appeal.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

If ever proof was needed that the railway ticket world has gone mad this is it.

 

[RJ]

If ever proof was needed that the railway ticket world has gone mad this is it.

I think your critique is somewhat misguided in this instance. All that was required was a ticket to the station the traveller was going to.

 

[yorkie]

The OP has suitable advice, and we're now debating the rights & wrongs of PFs being issued in this scenario. Let's be clear; the rules do allow it. The debate is about whether the rules should allow it or not (and that debate will not help the OP, other than provide suggestions for how the OP could contact the media and their MP to exert pressure, if they wish to escalate the matter)

If ever proof was needed that the railway ticket world has gone mad this is it.

It's not really a ticketing issue, it's more of a Penalty Fare issue. Perhaps you (and others) could write to your MP and ask if Penalty Fares legislation was intended to penalise someone travelling over-distance on a ticket where they should have bought a different ticket, but at the same price.

Imagine if the train had a friendly guard. Up here, where we're rather more civilised and don't have Penalty Fares, the conversation may have gone something like this:-

Guard "Tickets please"
Passenger "Hi, I'm going to Farringdon, is this OK?"
Guard "Oh, no your ticket doesn't cover your full journey, I'll need to issue an excess, let me check the price... ah, that's the same fare, so no payment required, here's your excess"
Passenger "Thank you!"
​

(This conversation could still have happened, had the customer checked at the booking office before setting off on the journey).

It is clear to me that the Penalty Fare legislation is being misused by some TOCs. Also, let's not forget, Penalty Fares are intended for legitimate customers making honest mistakes, and anyone being charged one is not being accused of intending to avoid payment. Anyone appealing a PF needs to bear that in mind (I've given advice accordingly to the OP via PM).

It's PFs that are flawed, not the railway ticketing system in this case (OK, the railway ticketing system isn't perfect, but no-one has come up with an acceptable alternative. The ticketing system has been under scrutiny in no less than 3 threads in the past 3 weeks, and that's not including this one!)

 

[RJ]

Where I was working, if someone was going overdistance but the ticket cost the same, we'd stamp a bit of paper and issue it as a permit to travel the extra distance. But then, people did approach me (a human member of staff) for advice rather than assuming and getting it wrong!

 

[The Barlow Boy]

I think your critique is somewhat misguided in this instance. All that was required was a ticket to the station the traveller was going to.

The person was travelling to a station where, either side is a station at the same fare. City Thameslink = £7.50, St. Pancras = £7.50. The actions by F.C.C. here are like a dog chasing it's own tail. What's the point of threatening to take someone to court for a stupid ticket anomally? F.C.C. are basically spending a pound to make fifty pence.

 

[Asian Demon]

The person was travelling to a station where, either side is a station at the same fare. City Thameslink = £7.50, St. Pancras = £7.50. The actions by F.C.C. here are like a dog chasing it's own tail. What's the point of threatening to take someone to court for a stupid ticket anomally? F.C.C. are basically spending a pound to make fifty pence.

Same fare perhaps, but not the correct ticket, nor the correct fare allocation. The other point being Farringdon is not a London Terminal station. The practice may not be liked, but FCC have not broken any laws/rules in issuing the PFN. Also in this instance no mention has been made of court action or anything else. All we have been told is a PFN was issued. The other matter is, it is making them money. If it wasn't, they wouldn't do it. They are a for profit company, like all other TOC's. It may be immoral but what to do.

Also it must be mentioned that a London Terminals ticket would not be valid to St Pancras from the South. Only from the North.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Same fare perhaps, but not the correct ticket, nor the correct fare allocation. The other point being Farringdon is not a London Terminal station. The practice may not be liked, but FCC have not broken any laws/rules in issuing the PFN. Also in this instance no mention has been made of court action or anything else. All we have been told is a PFN was issued. The other matter is, it is making them money. If it wasn't, they wouldn't do it. They are a for profit company, like all other TOC's. It may be immoral but what to do.

Also it must be mentioned that a London Terminals ticket would not be valid to St Pancras from the South. Only from the North.

What seems not to be noticed is that to make this money F.C.C.are spending more. As I stated, it's like spending a pound to make fifty pence.