Starting short on Liverpool to Norwich route

[DeverseSam]

Hi, am planning to start short on an advance ticket on the EMR Liverpool to Norwich route. This is because a friend has decided to travel from the next station along and I would plan to drive there and start the journey with her.

Any risk on this route from starting short? Is a penalty fare the worst possible outcome?
Thanks

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Hi, am planning to start short on an advance ticket on the EMR Liverpool to Norwich route. This is because a friend has decided to travel from the next station along and I would plan to drive there and start the journey with her.

Any risk on this route from starting short? Is a penalty fare the worst possible outcome?

Possibility that, if caught starting short, you might be issued with a Ticket Irregularity Report or similar which might end up costing you a three figure sum, plus a request in due course to pay the full undiscounted Anytime Day Single fare for your journey, if Liverpool Lime Street through to Norwich, this would, I think, be £130.30.

There's a reason why Advance tickets are cheap, but they do come with terms and conditions, and they're not really flexible tickets. Others may consider otherwise.

 

[Gaelan]

It's worth noting there is an internal policy that they will generally not enforce break-of-journey rules on advances unless there is evidence you're doing it to get a cheaper fare. But I'd not rely on this, as it's an internal policy and you'd have no recourse if they decided to enforce the restriction for some reason.

 

[Watershed]

Starting late or finishing short where not permitted to do so (e.g. because it's an Advance ticket) doesn't make the ticket invalid - provided of course, in the case of an Advance ticket, that you still travel on the booked train(s).

At worst, you are liable to pay the difference (excess) to the cheapest valid walk-up fare (the £130.30 Anytime Single @Mcr Warrior refers to). There is no offence being committed for which you could be prosecuted, nor could you validly be issued with a Penalty Fare.

As @Gaelan says, the industry policy is not to penalise those starting late or finishing short on Advance tickets, and I've no doubt that is the approach most staff would take. Of course, you can't contractually rely on that if you are charged the excess.

 

[transportphoto]

Realistically, no. You’ll be fine once on train (especially if using an e-ticket as it’ll just flag green.)

 

[northwichcat]

I would ask where you're starting at. For example, to access the platforms at Warrington Central, Manchester Oxford Rd/Piccadilly or Stockport you'd normally have to scan your ticket.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I would ask where you're starting at. For example, to access the platforms at Warrington Central, Manchester Oxford Rd/Piccadilly or Stockport you'd normally have to scan your ticket.

Widnes, perhaps? One for @DeverseSam to confirm.

 

[8A Rail]

Widnes, perhaps? One for @DeverseSam to confirm.

For information the next stopping station after Liverpool Lime Street is Liverpool South Parkway, then Widnes and then Warrington Central.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

For information the next stopping station after Liverpool Lime Street is Liverpool South Parkway, then Widnes and then Warrington Central.

Good point, but don't you usually have to scan in at Liverpool South Parkway (= barriered station) and so, and the barriers do actually work, won't this then show on the scan history assuming the ticket is an e-ticket?

 

[redreni]

Personally I wouldn't hesitate to do this if the station where you intend to start short is ungated.

If it is gated that might put me off. Particularly when the excess fare might (depending what you paid for your advance single) be significant. The most likely way you'd be charged the excess is if you try to enter through the gateline and they won't let you through. It's difficult to see a basis on which you could insist on being allowed through.

You could, of course, buy the cheapest ticket you can get and use it to open the barrier, but that's not something I'd personally be comfortable doing as it could look a bit dodgy.

 

[DeverseSam]

I would ask where you're starting at. For example, to access the platforms at Warrington Central, Manchester Oxford Rd/Piccadilly or Stockport you'd normally have to scan your ticket.

Thanks, it’s an ungated station but I’m reluctant to say which in case the relevant staff are reading!

At worst, you are liable to pay the difference (excess) to the cheapest valid walk-up fare (the £130.30 Anytime Single @Mcr Warrior refers to). There is no offence being committed for which you could be prosecuted, nor could you validly be issued with a Penalty Fare.

Thank you, so the TIR referred to
above can’t be issued?

In the event of being asked to pay the Anytime Single I’d be tempted to leave at the next station and buy a further advance/off peak ticket.

 

[northwichcat]

Thanks, it’s an ungated station but I’m reluctant to say which in case the relevant staff are reading!

If it's a station served by Northern you might their roaming penalty fare team turn up on the day. They've turned up at Delamere before, which is smaller than any of the places served by Liverpool-Norwich.

 

[DeverseSam]

If it's a station served by Northern you might their roaming penalty fare team turn up on the day. They've turned up at Delamere before, which is smaller than any of the places served by Liverpool-Norwich.

Thank you, I guess I’ll let my friend get to the platform first. If she reports back that there is a revenue team checking tickets, I’ll still have time to buy a new ticket to the next station along to avoid a difficult conversation

 

[Mcr Warrior]

@DeverseSam. Definitely not a good idea to board a Northern train (at Liverpool Lime Street or the mystery intermediate station) if you're just holding a route "EMR Only" advance ticket.

 

[robbeech]

@DeverseSam. Definitely not a good idea to board a Northern train (at Liverpool Lime Street or the mystery intermediate station) if you're just holding a route "EMR Only" advance ticket.

Agreed although they don’t specify it’s an EMR only advance, could be an EMR and connections advance. If they exist on this flow which I’m sure they must somewhere.

 

[LowLevel]

Thanks, it’s an ungated station but I’m reluctant to say which in case the relevant staff are reading!


Thank you, so the TIR referred to
above can’t be issued?

In the event of being asked to pay the Anytime Single I’d be tempted to leave at the next station and buy a further advance/off peak ticket.

Ironically we are, but we don't really care

Starting short by one stop on this route will be of no interest to the train guards provided the ticket is otherwise valid. It's a common occurrence given some of occasionally curious ticket availability on such a long route.

 

[Watershed]

Thank you, so the TIR referred to above can’t be issued?

There would be no legal basis for issuing a TIR, provided you pay the excess if asked to do so.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

There would be no legal basis for issuing a TIR, provided you pay the excess if asked to do so.

Not that you need any real legal basis to "issue" a TIR in the first place, of course. However, starting a journey short is a breach of the NRCoT which technically causes a Byelaw 18 breach - but as is well understood, internal, unpublished and non-contractual guidance does exist, stating that staff should largely ignore this irregularity- but the right(s) to investigate/prosecute do exist and it is merely goodwill on the part of the rail industry that such minor indiscretions are overlooked except when someone is trying to avoid paying a higher fare. There would sometimes be justification reporting the matter, if necessary, such as to ascertain whether the customer has a habit of starting short etc.

Same with people who think they are "issued" an MG11 - it's just a witness statement/report to be considered/investigated by someone with more time and resources later. Some TOCs provide a printed slip, but it's for info only.

The forum does seem to see this internal guidance as a firm, binding and guaranteed right at times, when it is nothing of the sort.

 

[Killingworth]

I believe it's quite common for users to book a return from Sheffield to Manchester yet on the day board or alight at ungated Dore & Totley. I've not heard of anyone being penalised for that. It would be quite difficult to prove in most cases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe it's quite common for users to book a return from Sheffield to Manchester yet on the day board or alight at ungated Dore & Totley. I've not heard of anyone being penalised for that. It would be quite difficult to prove in most cases.

Northern very, very often send £100 settlements for this sort of thing. There are a number in D&P. Boarding at Burley Park with a ticket from Leeds appears to be the most common one. Technically an excess is due, but you'll have to fight to get it down to that, perhaps even in Court.

If Northern or any station they operate is involved, I therefore would absolutely not do this. Meet the other person on the train.

EMR may be more reasonable, but there is lots of evidence of Northern not being.

 

[Killingworth]

Northern very, very often send £100 settlements for this sort of thing. There are a number in D&P. Boarding at Burley Park with a ticket from Leeds appears to be the most common one. Technically an excess is due, but you'll have to fight to get it down to that, perhaps even in Court.

If Northern or any station they operate is involved, I therefore would absolutely not do this. Meet the other person on the train.

EMR may be more reasonable, but there is lots of evidence of Northern not being.

Liverpool-Norwich is EMR and normally would be. That said there were 2 revenue protection people detrained at Dore last week when a Liverpool bound service was held for an hour due to a points failure. They might have taken a different approach to the situation described by the OP than the usual train crew.

 

[DeverseSam]

@DeverseSam. Definitely not a good idea to board a Northern train (at Liverpool Lime Street or the mystery intermediate station) if you're just holding a route "EMR Only" advance ticket.

I will definitely adhere to the “booked train” on the ticket which is EMR for this part of the journey

 

[AdamWW]

Not that you need any real legal basis to "issue" a TIR in the first place, of course. However, starting a journey short is a breach of the NRCoT which technically causes a Byelaw 18 breach

Which part of the NRCoT are you thinking of here?

16.3 seems to very clearly state that starting short renders the passenger iiable to pay the difference to a ticket which would permit it, so there seems no scope for a prosecution there.
There's nothing saying that this doesn't apply to advances.

The information box says ""advance" tickets do not permit a break of journey" but (aside from the fact that it's informational only) I don't see how that would make any difference to 16.3 as it specifically refers to someone breaking a journey when not entitled to.

Or are you using section 6.1 of the advance tickets terms and conditions?
"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."
Not part of the NRCoT, but referred to in it.

But again 16.3 specifically refers to tickets which don't permit break of journey so I don't see why it wouldn't still apply.

 

[8A Rail]

Thanks, it’s an ungated station but I’m reluctant to say which in case the relevant staff are reading!

I think we are able to work out what station that is already, sorry! A member of staff is there certainly during the morning shift, later afternoon not so unless a revenue protection team is present.

 

[redreni]

Not that you need any real legal basis to "issue" a TIR in the first place, of course.

Perhaps not, but it would seem like rank incompetence to issue one in the knowledge there wouldn't be a legal basis to take the matter any further.

Unless it's just a fishing expedition (this person has done a thing we don't like, which might have led to non-collection of an excess fare had we not realised they'd started short, therefore let's see if they've done anything else).

For what it's worth I think the guidance to ignore this sort of thing if no money has been saved is very wise and ought to be followed. The point of advances is to allow flexible pricing reflecting demand for specific trains. The OP is sticking to the booked train. He should get the less expensive fare. Even if he drives a little way down the line and gets on there. Not because he's entitled under the NRCoT or any other contractual term, but because it's a reasonable way for a business to treat its customers and the TIR route isn't.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Perhaps not, but it would seem like rank incompetence to issue one in the knowledge there wouldn't be a legal basis to take the matter any further.

Unless it's just a fishing expedition (this person has done a thing we don't like, which might have led to non-collection of an excess fare had we not realised they'd started short, therefore let's see if they've done anything else).

For what it's worth I think the guidance to ignore this sort of thing if no money has been saved is very wise and ought to be followed. The point of advances is to allow flexible pricing reflecting demand for specific trains. The OP is sticking to the booked train. He should get the less expensive fare. Even if he drives a little way down the line and gets on there. Not because he's entitled under the NRCoT or any other contractual term, but because it's a reasonable way for a business to treat its customers and the TIR route isn't.

A prosecution would be brought under the more serious Regulation of Railways Act 1889 because if it has got to that stage, it would be because the TOC suspected the customer was intentionally seeking to avoid paying the correct fare.

The guidance should definitely be followed, but this forum lives in a strange world at times where absolutely everyone is genuine and doesn't recognise that people trawl this forum looking for ways to avoid payment/defraud the railway, just as much as people trawl the forum looking for genuine assistance.

It's also very much NOT the case of "this person has done a thing we don't like" - the reality is "this person has contravened the terms of their ticket, that they agreed to abide by in return for a (usually) cheaper, yield managed Advance fare, and travelled without a valid ticket" - albeit 99% of the time, we won't enforce the breach, because it is sensible and good customer service and also bad publicity.

This is becoming a problem on certain Northern routes, where Advance fares deliberately aren't made available from intermediate points, but are available from say Leeds, where competition exists. People are intentionally "starting short" to circumvent the fare that is legally due.

 

[Watershed]

Not that you need any real legal basis to "issue" a TIR in the first place, of course.

Yes you do; as a minimum, you need a lawful basis or exemption for processing the passenger's personal data, e.g. by obtaining their name and address.

However, starting a journey short is a breach of the NRCoT

No it's not. It means that you are civilly liable for the excess; it is, if you will, a contractual right you can exercise which is usually free but in these circumstances costs money.

which technically causes a Byelaw 18 breach

There is no Byelaw breach so long as the booked train(s) are still taken.

but the right(s) to investigate/prosecute do exist and it is merely goodwill on the part of the rail industry that such minor indiscretions are overlooked except when someone is trying to avoid paying a higher fare

No criminal offence has been committed, therefore any investigation may be on shaky legal grounds and a prosecution would be unfounded. Not that that stops the rail industry from prosecuting people whenever it feels like it, of course.

The forum does seem to see this internal guidance as a firm, binding and guaranteed right at times, when it is nothing of the sort.

Can you cite where 'the forum' (a phrase that wrongly implies all members are of the same mind) has done so?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

This

Yes you do; as a minimum, you need a lawful basis or exemption for processing the passenger's personal data, e.g. by obtaining their name and address.


No it's not. It means that you are civilly liable for the excess; it is, if you will, a contractual right you can exercise which is usually free but in these circumstances costs money.


There is no Byelaw breach so long as the booked train(s) are still taken.


No criminal offence has been committed, therefore any investigation may be on shaky legal grounds and a prosecution would be unfounded. Not that that stops the rail industry from prosecuting people whenever it feels like it, of course.


Can you cite where 'the forum' (a phrase that wrongly implies all members are of the same mind) has done so?

This is absolute nonsense.

in any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel

The ticket is not valid without the excess fare. Without the excess fare, the ticket is undoubtedly not valid.

If facilities to obtain one prior to boarding exist, an offence is committed.

The fact that alternative disposals exist, or that the railway doesn't usually seek to prosecute for good, common sense reasons, does not make the fact an offence can potentially be committed, untrue.

 

[Watershed]

This is absolute nonsense.

I'm glad you are so confident of that

The ticket is not valid without the excess fare. Without the excess fare, the ticket is undoubtedly not valid.

Can you point me to where the NRCoT says that your Advance ticket becomes invalid if you break your journey?

In some situations, the NRCoT make absolutely clear that your ticket is deemed to be invalid or you are "treated as having joined a train without a valid Ticket" - note the referrals to condition 9 in conditions 10.1.3, 13.4, 15.4 and 38.1, for example.

In other situations, the NRCoT make no such mention of your ticket becoming invalid. They merely state the financial consequences for doing something like travelling on a non-permitted route or breaking your journey where not permitted to do so - see conditions 13.2 and 16.3.

Are you really suggesting that this deliberate disparity in the drafting of the NRCoT - which, after all, determines the validity of the ticket - is to be ignored? And that the ticket is deemed to be invalid despite the absence of any statement in the NRCoT suggesting that this is the case?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where you:
9.5.1 are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an “off-peak” or “super-off-peak”
Ticket) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are
travelling; or
9.5.2 are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; or
9.5.3 break your journey when you are not permitted to do so;
you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest
price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using.

Note WILL be charged (not may be charged, as per the Penalty Fares posters and rules). That does not, contractually, leave open any other course of action.

The law does allow the railway to prosecute but it rather seems that if they did (rather than charging as per the above) then they would be in breach of contract by so doing.

The only thing that's a bit of a grey area in this is whether "break of journey" includes starting/ending short. They are generally lumped in together (i.e. the railway applies a "break of journey" restriction specifically to prevent them, e.g. to prevent people using an Off Peak from Lancaster to London from Preston because it's less restricted) but would they then argue in Court that when it suits them they aren't actually quite the same thing?

I think this was actually once upon a time defined (alongside defining that BoJ meant leaving railway property, so you could quite legitimately stop off and trainspot for 6 hours as long as you didn't leave the station) but that definition was removed some time ago and not replaced.