Should my daughter appeal this PFN,...

[RJ]

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.

Selecting Farringdon will print Farringdon on the ticket. People deliberately choose not to however.

 

[jon0844]

A good point re. the ticket showing the restriction and: a) not implicitly saying that no + means no tube transfer (pedantic I know, but a lawyer would probably use that) and b) only being visible AFTER printing the ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Selecting Farringdon will print Farringdon on the ticket. People deliberately choose not to however.

While some may deliberately choose not to, I wonder how many more people are likely to think that London Terminals could mean any London station?

Terminals might just read as 'station' to some. Maybe terminus might make more sense to others, while those who even took the time to compare prices by finding the ticket to Farringdon and then saw a more (in their mind) flexible ticket at the same price might go for the latter in case they change what station they wish to go too.

I think all of this comes back down to the recurring problems with TVMs and how the software is set up. Like giving a disclaimer to people selecting a railcard discount, it wouldn't be difficult to pop up a further message to explain the restrictions (even showing the London Terminals valid from that station) before you can hit 'purchase ticket'. I'm sure the problem doesn't exist for those buying from a ticket office with a person to explain or clarify.

Not everyone is trying it on after all. The revenue staff can't tell either way.

 

[talltim]

Edit: I've just had a look at the site http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/crossing_london.html and it doesn't say anything about the absence of '+' meaning that it is not valid.
It also says
For example, a ticket from Brighton to London Terminals is valid to Victoria, Waterloo (changing at Clapham Junction), London Bridge, Blackfriars and City Thameslink or Charing Cross Waterloo East or Cannon Street (changing at London Bridge). It would not be valid to, for example, London Euston or Paddington as this would not be on the line of route and would involve crossing London using another mode of transport.

Why would it not be valid to Euston? If your route was to Euston, then Euston would be on your line of route. And if you go by Underground it's the same mode of transport, a train.

 

[RJ]

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

Too bad - give some people an inch and they take a mile where it comes to extra flexibility. Use of named stations only in London would eradicate the problem of people making up their own rules, for whatever the reason, where it comes to use of London Terminals tickets.

Alternatively (or additionally!), introduce a "Central London" or similar destination, adding the princely sum of £4.30 to the ticket price to include Underground travel, as the U ticket situation is certainly not intended to make life easy for the casual traveller. Again, would solve the problem.

Seems that either narrowing validity or putting up the price are the only practical solutions to overcome "complexity," even if complexity only exists as people have an inability to ask for help instead of coming to their own conclusions.

 

[Deerfold]

Too bad - give some people an inch and they take a mile where it comes to extra flexibility.

Yes, some people are dreadful, aren't they?

 

[sheff1]

Edit: I've just had a look at the site http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/crossing_london.html and it doesn't say anything about the absence of '+' meaning that it is not valid.
It also says
For example, a ticket from Brighton to London Terminals is valid to Victoria, Waterloo (changing at Clapham Junction), London Bridge, Blackfriars and City Thameslink or Charing Cross Waterloo East or Cannon Street (changing at London Bridge). It would not be valid to, for example, London Euston or Paddington as this would not be on the line of route and would involve crossing London using another mode of transport.

Why would it not be valid to Euston? If your route was to Euston, then Euston would be on your line of route. And if you go by Underground it's the same mode of transport, a train.

Quite, and it is possible to go Clapham Jn -Willesden Jn - Euston without touching the Underground.

Furthermore, on that link, St Pancras International is shown as a 'London Terminal' for Brighton

 

[jon0844]

Furthermore, on that link, St Pancras International is shown as a 'London Terminal' for Brighton

That's even more bizarre then. If you got a London Terminals ticket from Brighton and alighted early at Farringdon, would you get a PF then too?

 

[Deerfold]

Furthermore, on that link, St Pancras International is shown as a 'London Terminal' for Brighton

I think the details immediately after St Pancras are ambiguous. However, further down it clearly says:

Please note:
‘London Terminals’ tickets do not permit travel between City Thameslink, Farringdon and St Pancras International on the First Capital Connect ‘Thameslink’ route. Such journeys will require a ticket either to the named station or to a destination of ‘London Thameslink’ or to 'Zone U1'.

Despte the poor use of English (either followed by 3 options) I think that's fairly clear (once you've found this page).

 

[MikeWh]

... even if complexity only exists as people have an inability to ask for help instead of coming to their own conclusions.

And pray tell me how do you ask the TVM at a station with a closed ticket office for advice? In this "TVM is king - let's close ticket offices as much as possible" world that we now live in, the inability is as much the fault of the TOCs being unable to provide the means to seek help at stations.

 

[talltim]

Edit: I've just had a look at the site http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/crossing_london.html and it doesn't say anything about the absence of '+' meaning that it is not valid.
It also says
For example, a ticket from Brighton to London Terminals is valid to Victoria, Waterloo (changing at Clapham Junction), London Bridge, Blackfriars and City Thameslink or Charing Cross Waterloo East or Cannon Street (changing at London Bridge). It would not be valid to, for example, London Euston or Paddington as this would not be on the line of route and would involve crossing London using another mode of transport.

Why would it not be valid to Euston? If your route was to Euston, then Euston would be on your line of route. And if you go by Underground it's the same mode of transport, a train.

Although just before that quote it does say
Tickets can only be used on National Rail services
I take it to mean not Underground, but how does Joe public know that the Underground isn't National Rail?

Furthermore, on that link, St Pancras International is shown as a 'London Terminal' for Brighton

Can't find that bit?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the details immediately after St Pancras are ambiguous. However, further down it clearly says:

Please note:
‘London Terminals’ tickets do not permit travel between City Thameslink, Farringdon and St Pancras International on the First Capital Connect ‘Thameslink’ route. Such journeys will require a ticket either to the named station or to a destination of ‘London Thameslink’ or to 'Zone U1'.

Despte the poor use of English (either followed by 3 options) I think that's fairly clear (once you've found this page).

What about journeys between St Pancras International, Farringdon and City Thameslink?
That might be taking the ****

 

[jon0844]

Despte the poor use of English (either followed by 3 options) I think that's fairly clear (once you've found this page).

I saw the bit that mentions St Pancras as a London Terminal from Brighton. If there's further clarification then I didn't spot it, and wouldn't expect people to continue once they found the bit they were looking for.

Just like FCC showing Brookmans Park to London via Hatfield as a route (even if there's no ticket price showing), people making such obvious errors when supposedly giving terms and conditions just makes it even more stupid to do people who might have actually done some research.

Maybe ATOC should pop up a disclaimer to say that everything you read might be wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it as the stuff that's deemed right and what revenue staff will go by is not information made available to the public.

 

[Deerfold]

I saw the bit that mentions St Pancras as a London Terminal from Brighton. If there's further clarification then I didn't spot it, and wouldn't expect people to continue once they found the bit they were looking for.

I don't think it actually says that. But what they've done is made a list of London Terminals and then provided information about what places are served from these stations. I think they should have separated this into two lists as it's very easy to assume the list of places served are valid with a London terminals ticket.

 

[talltim]

I don't think it actually says that. But what they've done is made a list of London Terminals and then provided information about what places are served from these stations. I think they should have separated this into two lists as it's very easy to assume the list of places served are valid with a London terminals ticket.

agreed

 

[bluenoxid]

I don't think it actually says that. But what they've done is made a list of London Terminals and then provided information about what places are served from these stations. I think they should have separated this into two lists as it's very easy to assume the list of places served are valid with a London terminals ticket.

I hope you are not suggesting providing the full details of the validity of a train ticket!

 

[AeroSpace]

What on earth does it mean for a journey to be between three points?

 

[dar2008]

Yesterday my daughter received her response from IPFAS.

It was a long letter - five paragraphs. The first four outlined all the reasons why the PFN was correctly issued.

The final paragraph then begins with the words "With that in mind, I am pleased to inform you that your appeal has been successful...a cheque for £20 will be sent to you shortly by the train company responsible for having issued the penalty fare..."

So a huge thank you to all on this forum for their input to this particular thread. It does make me wonder if the traffic generated here went some way to influencing the outcome, though we shall never know for sure.

 

[hluraven]

That's great news and hopefully will set a precedent. I also hope that FCC have intstucted their revenue team not to PF passengers who have paid the correct fare.

 

[MikeWh]

Great news, thanks for letting us know.

 

[island]

Yesterday my daughter received her response from IPFAS.

It was a long letter - five paragraphs. The first four outlined all the reasons why the PFN was correctly issued.

The final paragraph then begins with the words "With that in mind, I am pleased to inform you that your appeal has been successful...a cheque for £20 will be sent to you shortly by the train company responsible for having issued the penalty fare..."

So a huge thank you to all on this forum for their input to this particular thread. It does make me wonder if the traffic generated here went some way to influencing the outcome, though we shall never know for sure.

That's good news. But your daughter should now use an Oyster card in the future!

 

[talltim]

Yesterday my daughter received her response from IPFAS.

It was a long letter - five paragraphs. The first four outlined all the reasons why the PFN was correctly issued.

The final paragraph then begins with the words "With that in mind, I am pleased to inform you that your appeal has been successful...a cheque for £20 will be sent to you shortly by the train company responsible for having issued the penalty fare..."

So a huge thank you to all on this forum for their input to this particular thread. It does make me wonder if the traffic generated here went some way to influencing the outcome, though we shall never know for sure.

so they are saying that FCC did nothing wrong, but then 'with that in mind' they are giving your money back?

 

[jon0844]

The classic don't admit anything trick, so you can continue to rip other people off who might not complain.

I had that with a dodgy parking meter. Took coins, no credit. Ran out of coins in the end, and still couldn't park. Naturally, I complained. Was told that parking meters couldn't take money without giving me time, and that someone had been to inspect it and it was fine (erm, don't think so).

Yet, despite being so sure that it didn't fail and they can't fail, they gave me my money back as a goodwill gesture.

I felt like writing back and saying 'if you're so sure, why the **** did you just pay me' but knew they couldn't admit in writing that the machines weren't foolproof, as it might just wind up being used against them later on.

 

[bb21]

Really pleased for you and your daughter. I think common sense prevailed at the end.

 

[DVD]

Really pleased for you and your daughter. I think common sense prevailed at the end.

It's good for Dar2008 that this was a successful outcome. I have read the debate with interest and I do agree that it is a triumph for common sense, rather than a pedantic jobsworth adherence to rules. (I say this as a civil servant who spends much of his life trying to ensure that rules are followed and laws are obeyed, but who tries where possible to use some common sense, discretion and sympathy in dealing with the general public).

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

I think once again this brings us back to the problem of passengers being held accountable against rules that they are not aware of and are not publicised. There are now some posters on FCC down south about the need to have a ticket to London St. Pancras rather than London Terminals but you'd struggle to find this out in most other stations on SR. It continues to surprise me that the the TOCs can apply rules but not be under an obligation to advertise them clearly...