Should my daughter appeal this PFN,...

[garnon]

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.

Would the gate at St Pancras be able to differentiate a 'London terminals' ticket from either the North (accept) or the south (reject). Doubt that ?

 

[Eagle]

Would the gate at St Pancras be able to differentiate a 'London terminals' ticket from either the North (accept) or the south (reject).

I see no reason why it shouldn't. Same way that the gateline at Waterloo should reject a ticket from Shoeburyness to London Terminals.

There is some logical problem if a ticket from A to C doesn't have the same destination as a ticket from B to C - that is, "C" differs in meaning depending on what your originating station is.

But surely this is true of any ticket to London.

To use the above example, a ticket from Shoeburyness to London Terminals is valid to Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street, and only those two stations. Whereas ticket from Woking to London Terminals (the "same destination") is valid to Waterloo, Vauxhall, Victoria, Waterloo East, Charing Cross, London Bridge, Cannon Street, Blackfriars and City Thameslink, a completely different set of stations.

There's nothing irregular about Thameslink stations in this respect.

 

[RJ]

There is some logical problem if a ticket from A to C doesn't have the same destination as a ticket from B to C - that is, "C" differs in meaning depending on what your originating station is.

If you want a ticket of open the barriers at all termini in Central London then it has to be a ticket to the U Zones. The logic you are trying to use is not at all applicable to tickets to London Terminals.

 

[telstarbox]

To the OP - FCC have responded to this through their latest "Meet the directors" session - see Question 76 - http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/customer-care/talk-to-us/meet-the-directors/15-jun-2012/?page=5.

This issue has been raised with our Revenue Protection Management in order to remind staff about using there discretion with issues such as these.

 

[sheff1]

The logic you are trying to use is not at all applicable to tickets to London Terminals.

Why not ? If you buy a ticket to destination described thereon as 'London Terminals' it is logical that it would valid to any station which is a 'London Terminal'. Of course it isn't, but that is illogical and likely to be misleading to infrequent users. The confusion is only compounded when some 'London Terminals' are not actually terminals at all.

 

[dar2008]

To the OP - FCC have responded to this through their latest "Meet the directors" session - see Question 76 - http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/customer-care/talk-to-us/meet-the-directors/15-jun-2012/?page=5.

Thank you to Mr Hunter, this is indeed a positive sign, although my daughter is still awaiting a response from IRCAS.

 

[Squaddie]

This issue has been raised with our Revenue Protection Management in order to remind staff about using there discretion with issues such as these.

That's a rather surprising spelling mistake to appear in an official response from a company. It gives a less-than-professional impression.

 

[Eagle]

If you buy a ticket to destination described thereon as 'London Terminals' it is logical that it would valid to any station which is a 'London Terminal'.

Why is that logical? For the ticket to be valid to stations you clearly can't have gotten to without taking an unreasonable route?

By your logic a Shoeburyness to London Terminals ticket should be valid to Paddington, meaning it is valid by the shortest route to Paddington, which in this case (being as you can't use the Tube) is Shoeburyness–Barking–Gospel Oak–Richmond–Windsor–Slough–London Paddington. Is that logical?

It is logical, surely, for a ticket only to be valid to places that valid routes take you.

 

[Oswyntail]

....By your logic a Shoeburyness to London Terminals ticket should be valid to Paddington, ....

Actually, that is what it says on the ticket so, simply from the point of view of language, it should be valid to Paddington.
The problem arises (as so often) because whoever came up with the designation "London terminals" knew what they meant and assumed others would too. A new designation could solve any issues quite simply. For instance, grouping the terminals: as a rough example, put Liverpool St and Fenchurch St in Group A, Kings Cross and Moorgate in Group B, and so on; then referring to "London Group A" would mean the ticket was available into ONLY Liverpool St and Fenchurch St, London Group A& B into King's Cross and Moorgate as well. Not beyond the wit of man to work out. And, of course, a Group could include through stations such as Farringdon or Vauxhall.
And, because the designation does not use language that could be misinterpreted because it does not have any standard meaning, people would actually look up to see which group their station fell in. And, golly, accurate lists could be printed and displayed.

 

[jon0844]

Not necessarily. People who are let off with a friendly warning will not come on this website praising FCC staff.

That is true. FCC do let a lot of people off.

By no means the only situations, but I've seen a young girl flirt to be let off trying to exit with an Oyster at Hatfield and someone on a train admitting to fare evasion being given a PF. There are other occasions that make my heart sink when I am aware of the cases posted on here.

Sadly there's little consistency. Discretion is what people demand but as time goes on, discretion regularly turns out to favour or punish the wrong people. Not that I can offer up any magic solution.

However not showing discretion when a ticket costs the same (irrespective of the revenue allocation) is sad. When TL links up to the ECML and beyond there will be loads more easy pickings! It needs to be sorted for the next franchise.

 

[sheff1]

Actually, that is what it says on the ticket so, simply from the point of view of language, it should be valid to Paddington.
The problem arises (as so often) because whoever came up with the designation "London terminals" knew what they meant and assumed others would too. A new designation could solve any issues quite simply. For instance, grouping the terminals: as a rough example, put Liverpool St and Fenchurch St in Group A, Kings Cross and Moorgate in Group B, and so on; then referring to "London Group A" would mean the ticket was available into ONLY Liverpool St and Fenchurch St, London Group A& B into King's Cross and Moorgate as well. Not beyond the wit of man to work out. And, of course, a Group could include through stations such as Farringdon or Vauxhall.
And, because the designation does not use language that could be misinterpreted because it does not have any standard meaning, people would actually look up to see which group their station fell in. And, golly, accurate lists could be printed and displayed.

Thank you. My point exactly - saves me writing it out

 

[exile]

Why is that logical? For the ticket to be valid to stations you clearly can't have gotten to without taking an unreasonable route?

By your logic a Shoeburyness to London Terminals ticket should be valid to Paddington, meaning it is valid by the shortest route to Paddington, which in this case (being as you can't use the Tube) is Shoeburyness–Barking–Gospel Oak–Richmond–Windsor–Slough–London Paddington. Is that logical?

It is logical, surely, for a ticket only to be valid to places that valid routes take you.

The question of whether any particular route to your destination is valid is a separate issue to what your destination actually is.

 

[Eagle]

The question of whether any particular route to your destination is valid is a separate issue to what your destination actually is.

But if a destination has no valid routes to it, then it can't be a valid destination. That much is obvious.

 

[34D]

Arguably it would be even simpler if tickets named the 'typical' London terminal station (for the base level fare), and posters advised which alternates were acceptable from which lines.

Passengers could name any zone 1 station (at ticket office or TVM), and the fare would either be the same as for the main London Terminal station, or extra to include the tube U1 transfer.

Aside - I note there is a lot of discussion in this thread (including theorising,
Which doesn't particularly help the OP). Is it worth the mods splitting the discussion off?

 

[cuccir]

Arguably it would be even simpler if tickets named the 'typical' London terminal station (for the base level fare), and posters advised which alternates were acceptable from which lines.

Passengers could name any zone 1 station (at ticket office or TVM), and the fare would either be the same as for the main London Terminal station, or extra to include the tube U1 transfer.

Aside - I note there is a lot of discussion in this thread (including theorising,
Which doesn't particularly help the OP). Is it worth the mods splitting the discussion off?

I've had very similar thoughts, both about the ticket and the splitting off of the thread!

I think the the easiest option might be if the generic London option was a fare including the tube zone 1 transfer, perhaps charged at the £2 Oyster price. Every UK station should also, in addition, have the option to buy to one (or more) named London terminals, as is appropriate, with a slightly lower fare. Indeed, it would bring in more opportunities for competition eg EMT might offer a fare to 'St Pancras' that customers from the North of England could chose, taking them longer but saving money.

 

[Brucey]

Every UK station should also, in addition, have the option to buy to one (or more) named London terminals, as is appropriate, with a slightly lower fare. Indeed, it would bring in more opportunities for competition eg EMT might offer a fare to 'St Pancras' that customers from the North of England could chose, taking them longer but saving money.

Southern have done this for some time. From many destinations, it is possible to buy a ticket to London Victoria, in addition to London Terminals.

I wonder how many people actually use the flexibility of returning from a different London Terminal? Couldn't all confusion be removed by selling tickets to specific stations only?

 

[island]

Southern have done this for some time. From many destinations, it is possible to buy a ticket to London Victoria, in addition to London Terminals.

Southeastern too, for super off-peak returns from the further-out stations.

 

[jon0844]

My parents nearly got in trouble for trying to use a London Terminals from Cheshunt to Euston, incorrectly thinking that the ticket was to a terminal station in London (not just the terminal of that particular train).

They were actually let in to the tube at Tottenham Hale (not sure how they got out at Euston later, but they did*!). They bought the ticket because it was on the first page of the TVM and they never thought to go in and search for the station manually as they assumed Euston is a terminal station and London Terminals is plural, meaning any terminal station.

I can therefore see why people might be confused by the meaning of London Terminals, and when using a TVM you don't generally pull out your smartphone and Google to find out what London Terminals means.

Thameslink is always going to be confusing given the line goes through the northern and southern terminal stations. I'd suggest they fix things here, and come to some sort of agreement over revenue sharing.

Luckily, a lot of the problems will disappear when smartcards extend beyond London and people can touch in/out. They'll always pay the right fare, and the revenue can be distributed correctly, with no chance of getting a PF.

* Discretion against two people in their 60s, I suspect.

 

[RJ]

If people cannot cope with the supposed complexity of the concept of London Terminals, surely it would be a better solution to scrap it altogether and force people to buy a ticket to a named station?

 

[Eagle]

If people cannot cope with the supposed complexity of the concept of London Terminals, surely it would be a better solution to scrap it altogether and force people to buy a ticket to a named station?

...therefore losing the flexibility you get from origins south of London, which can often be valid to eight or ten different stations.

 

[cuccir]

If people cannot cope with the supposed complexity of the concept of London Terminals, surely it would be a better solution to scrap it altogether and force people to buy a ticket to a named station?

I think so: either a named station, or a London Zone 1 ticket.

 

[talltim]

Why is that logical? For the ticket to be valid to stations you clearly can't have gotten to without taking an unreasonable route?

By your logic a Shoeburyness to London Terminals ticket should be valid to Paddington, meaning it is valid by the shortest route to Paddington, which in this case (being as you can't use the Tube) is Shoeburyness–Barking–Gospel Oak–Richmond–Windsor–Slough–London Paddington. Is that logical?

It is logical, surely, for a ticket only to be valid to places that valid routes take you.

And how, as Joe public, do you know you can't use the tube? After all you have bought a ticket to London Terminals, it would be stupid to go all the way around London, but the tube is a simple route.id

 

[Eagle]

And how, as Joe public, do you know you can't use the tube?

Because most ticket stock states on it quite clearly that the ticket is only valid on the tube or DLR if it has a † on it. Or have you never bothered to actually read the wording on a ticket before?

 

[RJ]

If people cannot cope with the supposed complexity of the concept of London Terminals, surely it would be a better solution to scrap it altogether and force people to buy a ticket to a named station?

 

[jon0844]

If people cannot cope with the supposed complexity of the concept of London Terminals, surely it would be a better solution to scrap it altogether and force people to buy a ticket to a named station?

It's simply a problem because people can misunderstand the meaning, or what stations are terminals.

I regard them as a station where a train terminates, which is pretty much the case for all but the exceptions through the core (and Old Street). As such, I can see why people might think of Euston, Liverpool St, King's Cross as a terminal station and possibly that you can come into London via one and travel on to another.

Totally wrong, yes, but I can still see why people might think so (and TOCs seem to put London Terminals up on the front screen of TVMs that can lead people to not realise that there's a page 2 or a A-Z search to find more tickets).

It works fine for lines that can split and end at different parts of town, but TL is a weird exception, especially where the fares are the same. Joe Public doesn't care about how the revenue is shared out, but FCC clearly like it as they must make a fair bit. There were posters up at Farringdon when I used to work there, but I am not sure how passengers are otherwise told before they get there. The posters always made me think that you'd just go to the excess window and pay the difference (which in this case appears to be £0)!

In the case of my parents, they stopped short of their London Terminal (Liverpool Street) to take the tube to Euston. They were stopped (presumably the gate rejected their ticket), but allowed through. Normally, an attempt to transfer to another terminal would be an issue on a bus or tube. Farringdon is the exception because you've come to a station that is beyond your validity and you're still on a service that has penalty fares in operation - thus no £0 excess.

It's one of the rules that is there for revenue purposes, and if people were aware and bought the right ticket then the revenue splitting would work fine. In the few cases where people got it wrong, it's where discretion can be shown as one loss of a few pence isn't massive - and most passengers wouldn't buy the wrong ticket again. There's no obvious gain by buying the wrong ticket, and no intent to defraud. It's where I believe the penalty fare system falls down.

Perhaps details should be taken and a check of the passenger details should be made like when issuing a PF and if there's no previous record for that person, they're let off. Second time, they've been told and made aware of what a London Terminal is and how it's defined and you give the PF.

 

[Eagle]

If people cannot cope with the supposed complexity of the concept of London Terminals, surely it would be a better solution to scrap it altogether and force people to buy a ticket to a named station?

I assume you wouldn't want to remove any other station groups (like Birmingham Stns, whose flexibility can be useful when travelling from, say, Leamington Spa) where there is no equivalent "zone 1"-style ticket for people who need the choice of stations?

 

[jon0844]

Because most ticket stock states on it quite clearly that the ticket is only valid on the tube or DLR if it has a † on it. Or have you never bothered to actually read the wording on a ticket before?

Yes they do. Maybe London Terminals could be changed to allow 'one journey across London by Underground/DLR services if required' by adding a + to the end. Then negotiate the revenue split and have done with.

TOCs might not want to give up that bit of revenue, but DfT/TfL could make it part of future franchises and any new company bidding would be aware of it. When PAYG is extended, this archaic system of revenue sharing will be pretty much redundant anyway as revenue can be split accurately.

 

[snail]

I assume you wouldn't want to remove any other station groups (like Birmingham Stns, whose flexibility can be useful when travelling from, say, Leamington Spa) where there is no equivalent "zone 1"-style ticket for people who need the choice of stations?

There isn't a problem of this type of over-travelling in Birmingham is there?

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Change the TVM's, so the passenger selects the actual station to which they are travelling, eg KGX then it prints say to Kings Cross - London Terminals. If someone selected ZFD, it would only print to Farrington.

 

[talltim]

Because most ticket stock states on it quite clearly that the ticket is only valid on the tube or DLR if it has a † on it. Or have you never bothered to actually read the wording on a ticket before?

I only buy seasons and my latest one doesn't mention London. However looking at a normal ticket my collegue has, it says
'+' denotes ticket is valid for one journey across London by Underground/DLR services if required which doesn't say that it isn't valid if it doesn't have a '+' (although the national rail crossing london website probably clarifies it). However you only get to see the ticket after you have bought it anyway and then can only see the info if you can go online or are at a staffed station.
Also it says London Terminals, which kinda allows for going to more than one.