Stopping Short

[Starmill]

This might not turn out well but...

As far as I can see it is perfectly acceptable to charge someone an excess because they have left the train early on an advance. They have not consumed less of a product, but an entirely different one to the one they paid for, which is made, I think, explicitly clear by the terms and conditions of said product. The person might be getting off at a station with no advance fare from the place they boarded, which is undermining the TOCs pricing policy. That policy might be draconian and unfair but that doesn't mean its OK to break the terms and conditions of your contract.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The terms of an Advance ticket specify some of the special obligations attached to the ticket. Though the ticket simply acts as a token for the obligation the Company has entered into.

What a Railway Company wants from a passenger is the correct fare for their journey. In exchange, the Company enters into that obligation, it expects the passenger to, either: not travel at all, or, to take the exact journey.

I've explained previously (*) that a passenger can stop short if they regularise the position by buying a single ticket from the destination back to the point at which they wish to alight early. That avoids any complex dispute about what the correct price 'should have been' for the short-Advance, it avoids the question of defrauding the Company of any monies, it avoids any concern about not having contracted for any part of their liability and about the responsibilities of the Company at the stations concerned, it avoids any errors in the demand-management objectives in creating quotas of Advances, it avoids the risk of not holding a valid ticket at any instant of their journey (including the passenger's time on Railway premises).

The only reason I can see why the Company would wish to argue that the passenger travels over the last part of the route twice (doubling-back) would be to enforce the Condition "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.". But as the passenger has already paid for travel (back) to the station at which they arrive, then I'm not able to find any compelling reason to force the passenger to double-back, the passenger who was at liberty not to travel at all, other than the established offences: an attempt to defraud the Company, failure to produce a valid ticket, intent to avoid payment, theft, travelling beyond the destination on their ticket, damages for breach of contract - all of these would fail.

The Company's only remaining argument would be that an additional ticket should be sold, for the actual point to point journey. However, the as tickets held correspond to the point to point journey (and to the actual service: "Tickets are valid ONLY on the date and train service(s) shown on the ticket(s)."), I would find that an unsupportable claim.

* That was in 2010. I then added

if a passenger holds the tickets A>C via B and C>B and the most onerous Conditions are those pertaining to an Advance for the A>C leg, and the passenger wishes to alight at B without travelling on to C and back, then . . . .

the tickets give the passenger an entitlement to travel, but gives the railway company a compulsion to convey the passenger.
As there is no compulsion for the passenger to travel at all, then the moment that the train arrives at "B" the railway company cannot then compell the passenger for further travel once they have completed their entitlement.

This was argued by many of the knowledgeable members of this forum back then, in this thread: "Break of Journey" without discussing the Customer Services or media points of view.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Thanks to everyone for their comments and its nice to see we can debate this calmly!

The points about contractual obligations and bad publicity are directly related. Obligations that make sense cannot become bad publicity, indeed most operators are happy to publicise fare evaders being prosecuted. So this is not about encouraging people to ignore the rules. However there are rules and there are rules.

I can draw up a contract that mandates almost anything, and can get my customer to sign it if they don't fully understand what they're signing or don't read it. Does that mean the contract is something I would want to enforce? I've negotiated deals where the other side folds too early and the deal is so biased in my favour that its actually harmful to the relationship - I waived the conditions. I've had a contract that the other side wilfully challenges and my business chooses not to enforce (as taking customers to court is bad for business) - the conditions are waived.

All I am saying in this case is that in not enforcing the contract the rail operator recognises they have gone too far. The pricing structure is illogical and consequently it would be bad business - due to the bad publicity of highlighting this error - to enforce. Again, a contract that one side doesn't understand and the other side won't enforce is by definition not a contract. Even where these things go to court the judgement takes into account things like intent and proportionality. Most private car parks have a contract which states they can charge you a large fine for parking there too long. That the fine isn't legally enforceable and the company always concedes at parking tribunals demonstrates the validity of the penalty element of this "contract".

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jb]

All I am saying in this case is that in not enforcing the contract the rail operator recognises they have gone too far. The pricing structure is illogical and consequently it would be bad business - due to the bad publicity of highlighting this error - to enforce.

You say three things here and only the latter is (perhaps) correct.

It isn't ludicrous. LM have put weekend time restrictions on their Super Off Peak (OPR) products. Someone from SWT land, seeing an OPR ticket, would automatically assume it can be used on any train at the weekend.

I think you misunderstand. The difficulty or abstruseness of the conditions (which is nil for stopping short on Advances anyway) is not the point. The ludicrous bit is the idea that T+Cs are unenforceable because "no-one reads them".

It doesn't matter how oft this is repeated, it remains ridiculous.

 

[yorkie]

It doesn't matter how oft this is repeated, it remains ridiculous.

To charge people any more for travelling from London to Stockport instead of London to Manchester? I think a majority of people would think that to be ridiculous, but it's the policy of the rail industry not to charge people in those circumstances, so the ridiculousness is averted.

This might not turn out well but...

As far as I can see it is perfectly acceptable to charge someone an excess because they have left the train early on an advance. They have not consumed less of a product, but an entirely different one to the one they paid for, which is made, I think, explicitly clear by the terms and conditions of said product. The person might be getting off at a station with no advance fare from the place they boarded, which is undermining the TOCs pricing policy.

Many people would disagree with this. But, the crucial aspect is..

That policy might be draconian and unfair but that doesn't mean its OK to break the terms and conditions of your contract.

The policy of the rail industry is, in fact, not at all draconian, and is to allow the OP to change trains (or even exit!) at Stockport without further charge.

Also is the OP breaking the T&Cs anyway? I refer you to NRCoC Condition 19, and the OP is not "breaking" his journey at Stockport, he is changing trains, which is not a "break of journey".

Some may interpret that as a breach of T&Cs, albeit a breach for which the rail industry has decided - rightly or wrongly - there should be no additional charge for, but others would interpret there is no breach of T&Cs.

 

[34D]

So if I buy a plane ticket from Heathrow to Los Angeles, can I instead go Heathrow to JFK on the same carrier because it is a shorter distance?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....The policy of the rail industry is, in fact, not at all draconian, and is to allow the OP to change trains (or even exit!) at Stockport without further charge....

As a member of railway staff I can say without doubt, that this policy has not been shared with me and, as far as I am aware, the the only evidence of this alleged policy has come from certain members of this forum, and even then only in regard to a particular TOC, which hardly makes it 'a railway policy'.

....Also is the OP breaking the T&Cs anyway? I refer you to NRCoC Condition 19, and the OP is not "breaking" his journey at Stockport, he is changing trains, which is not a "break of journey".

Some may interpret that as a breach of T&Cs, albeit a breach for which the rail industry has decided - rightly or wrongly - there should be no additional charge for, but others would interpret there is no breach of T&Cs.

By which I assume you mean Condition 16.

Condition 16 defines a break of journey as leaving railway property after starting your journey unless you are following the instructions of a member of staff, using ovenight accommodation when you can't complete your journey or joining another train at another station.

The terms of the Advance ticket are that you may not start, break and resume or end your journey at any intermediate station (except to change trains).

The only places which cannot be an intermediate station are the origin and destination of the ticket.

 

[yorkie]

So if I buy a plane ticket from Heathrow to Los Angeles, can I instead go Heathrow to JFK on the same carrier because it is a shorter distance?

We know what the policies of the rail industry are on the matter in hand, but I don't know what the policies of the airline industry are.

If someone was to seek advice on that (in the Other Transport forum) I would leave it to people familiar with the airline's conditions and policies to answer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As a member of railway staff I can say without doubt, that this policy has not been shared with me and, as far as I am aware, the the only evidence of this alleged policy has come from certain members of this forum, and even then only in regard to a particular TOC, which hardly makes it 'a railway policy'.

It's up to your employer to brief their staff, so I suggest you take it up with them.

There are many conditions, policies, etc which are not passed on to staff. Training is often inadequate in the rail industry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

By which I assume you mean Condition 16.

Condition 16 defines a break of journey as leaving railway property after starting your journey unless you are following the instructions of a member of staff, using ovenight accommodation when you can't complete your journey or joining another train at another station.

The terms of the Advance ticket are that you may not start, break and resume or end your journey at any intermediate station (except to change trains).

The only places which cannot be an intermediate station are the origin and destination of the ticket.

So you agree that no break of journey has occured at Stockport, on a journey from London to Altrincham, as the passenger does not leave the station.

If a break of journey was to occur at Stockport, we also know that the rules could in theory allow for the difference to be charged, between the fare paid and the cheapest ticket that would have allowed break of journey, but that the policy is not to charge anything.

Agreed?

The moral argument is that you don't like the above situation, but I am content with it. We'll have to agree to disagree on that!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

At Stockport? I think that a fair assessment would be that no break of journey (by NRCoC definition) had occurred there, but Altrincham is neither the origin or destination of the Advance fare, nor has the destination of the Advance fare (Manchester) been reached.

The conditions of the ticket, and the rules I have available to me, state a payment is due, I have no evidence that states that a policy to the contrary exists, just that which people on this forum (of opposing opinion) have mentioned.

 

[yorkie]

So is it the policy of your TOC to charge people an excess fare?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I have not seen a policy on the matter, I only have the instructions given in 'The Manual' to follow.

 

[jb]

We know what the policies of the rail industry are on the matter in hand, but I don't know what the policies of the airline industry are.

If someone was to seek advice on that (in the Other Transport forum) I would leave it to people familiar with the airline's conditions and policies to answer.

You'll be pleased to hear that your flittering and fluttering between rules / policy and "common sense" as you see fit is a source of amusement.

A tip: if you want to form a coherent worldview, something more nuanced than "The TOC is The Big Bad Wolf" will be necessary.

 

[Harlesden]

So if I buy a plane ticket from Heathrow to Los Angeles, can I instead go Heathrow to JFK on the same carrier because it is a shorter distance?

Not if it's a non-stop flight LHR-LAX

 

[VauxhallandI]

Not if it's a non-stop flight LHR-LAX

I think that is called a hijack

 

[soil]

It is possible to stop short on full service airlines (known as 'hidden city bookings').

Airlines are able to restrict this in some cases by the use of return tickets priced only slightly above singles, so that if you miss the second outward leg they are likely to cancel both the return legs.

Also it is reported that they do not credit frequent flyer miles for passengers stopping short.

It's very common however to do it, and there are no criminal sanctions. Passengers can come up with excuses for needing to cut their journey short, and if done only seldom it's seen as low-risk. If done more frequently sanctions such as loss of legitimately earned frequent flyer miles may occur.

Of course airline ticket pricing is very much more sophisticated than train tickets - (almost) anyone can drive from Manchester to London, so the rail industry has only limited powers to overcharge, whereas the airlines can impose arbitrarily high fares between certain cities if market forces (competing airlines) will allow it.

It is also common on ferries and Eurotunnel that two day return fares are cheaper than a period return. This is against the TOCs and there are reports of the difference in fare being charged to the customer's credit card. Again no criminal sanctions.

 

[yorkie]

You'll be pleased to hear that your flittering and fluttering between rules / policy and "common sense" as you see fit is a source of amusement.

A tip: if you want to form a coherent worldview, something more nuanced than "The TOC is The Big Bad Wolf" will be necessary.

The rules allow them to charge an excess fare (though whether or not that applies to the OPs journey using a combination of tickets is dubious), but the policy is not to charge an excess fare. If you are unhappy with that consistency, I suggest you take that up with ATOC.

I believe the policy of not charging an excess fare is an application of common sense, you can disagree with that policy then that's your right to do so.

 

[Starmill]

Many people would disagree with this. But, the crucial aspect is..


The policy of the rail industry is, in fact, not at all draconian, and is to allow the OP to change trains (or even exit!) at Stockport without further charge.

Also is the OP breaking the T&Cs anyway? I refer you to NRCoC Condition 19, and the OP is not "breaking" his journey at Stockport, he is changing trains, which is not a "break of journey".

Some may interpret that as a breach of T&Cs, albeit a breach for which the rail industry has decided - rightly or wrongly - there should be no additional charge for, but others would interpret there is no breach of T&Cs.

Of course people will disagree, and that's fine, but I think you've misunderstood my last. I was referring to the pricing of the TOC which is being undermined, in perhaps less than entirely clear terms. For example, if I were to buy an Advance ticket from Leeds to Thirsk, and thereby save quite a sum over a potential Anytime Return, but I were to leave the train at York, to where there are no Advance fares at all from Leeds, that would be undermining TPEs pricing of tickets would it not? Regardless of how overpriced Leeds - York truly is. Is it OK to do this? It's a new idea to me that additional charges are not to be made in such circumstances actually, so does this make doing this acceptable, either legally or morally?

 

[AndyLandy]

I've explained previously (*) that a passenger can stop short if they regularise the position by buying a single ticket from the destination back to the point at which they wish to alight early. That avoids any complex dispute about what the correct price 'should have been' for the short-Advance, it avoids the question of defrauding the Company of any monies, it avoids any concern about not having contracted for any part of their liability and about the responsibilities of the Company at the stations concerned, it avoids any errors in the demand-management objectives in creating quotas of Advances, it avoids the risk of not holding a valid ticket at any instant of their journey (including the passenger's time on Railway premises).

I would certainly applaud this as an acceptable solution. The problem is that the press and the general travelling public will never accept that it's appropriate to charge large penalties on travelling short, no matter what the wording of the tickets.

There's an assumed logic to it. If you ride a fast express train on a "stopping service only" ticket, then clearly you've taken more than you paid for. If you are booked on a specific train, but travel on a different train, you're also clearly being unreasonable. Same as travelling in first with a standard ticket, or a peak service with an off-peak ticket. But the trouble with travelling short is that the perceived logic is you're using less than you paid for, and anyone who squeals about it will always have public opinion on their side. TOCs will inevitably cave to press pressure and dish out the compo.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm sure that Professor Evans would have happily coughed up the single fare from Darlington to Durham, if East Coast had asked him to do that. He's one of the most senior academics at Durham University, hence why the issue got so much publicity, he's not short of a bob or three. I don't even think that would be unreasonable in the circumstances.

I actually don't think there is any justification for not allowing people to end their journey early, if they so desire. I know what the rules say, and usually cover my position by buying a single back, but I don't think the rules are justifiable in any circumstances.

The TOCs suffer no financial penalty by stopping short, providing you are on your booked train. You have paid for the journey you have made/are making. It should not be more expensive to travel a shorter distance and, if it is, that is the TOC ripping the passenger off, not the passenger ripping the TOC off.

 

[tractakid]

I think that anyone that ignores the terms and conditions of the tickets and then tries to get out of their duty to pay an appropriate fare is in the wrong. TOCs are suffering because people wrongfully try and get away with taking advantage.

If I was caught stopping short on an advance ticket, I would regret my mistake and pay the appropriate excess.

Just because a restriction is unenforcable doesn't mean that you shouldn't abide by it.

 

[talltim]

Break of journey

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.

Doesn't specify which tickets(s)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....The TOCs suffer no financial penalty by stopping short, providing you are on your booked train. You have paid for the journey you have made/are making. It should not be more expensive to travel a shorter distance and, if it is, that is the TOC ripping the passenger off, not the passenger ripping the TOC off.

If the passenger is not prepared to abide by the restrictions they should not buy the ticket. If they do buy the restricted ticket with intent to travel short it is nothing less than intentional deceit to gain financial advantage, which, as it happens, is a very good description of fraud, but obviously a passenger could never be guilty of that, it's all the evil railway's fault after all.:roll:

I think that anyone that ignores the terms and conditions of the tickets and then tries to get out of their duty to pay an appropriate fare is in the wrong. TOCs are suffering because people wrongfully try and get away with taking advantage...

Yep, but you just can't get that into some people's heads. In fact, you could argue that people's attempt to pay less than the fare due is leading to rises in fares (or at least giving excuses for it).

....If I was caught stopping short on an advance ticket, I would regret my mistake and pay the appropriate excess...

As would anyone with any morals, unfortunately a growing percentage of society has no morals and believe they can never be wrong.

....Just because a restriction is unenforcable doesn't mean that you shouldn't abide by it.

It is not unenforceable, it is just not enforced enough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Doesn't specify which tickets(s)

Are you suggesting Advance ticket T&Cs can apply to Anytime tickets?

 

[jb]

I'm sure that Professor Evans would have happily coughed up the single fare from Darlington to Durham, if East Coast had asked him to do that. He's one of the most senior academics at Durham University, hence why the issue got so much publicity, he's not short of a bob or three. I don't even think that would be unreasonable in the circumstances.

I actually don't think there is any justification for not allowing people to end their journey early, if they so desire. I know what the rules say, and usually cover my position by buying a single back, but I don't think the rules are justifiable in any circumstances.

The TOCs suffer no financial penalty by stopping short, providing you are on your booked train. You have paid for the journey you have made/are making. It should not be more expensive to travel a shorter distance and, if it is, that is the TOC ripping the passenger off, not the passenger ripping the TOC off.

It's absolutely fine that you don't understand yield management. No-one is expecting you to. Furthermore we are not discussing the reasonableness of things here. Anyone who thinks the terms are unreasonable are perfectly at liberty not to be constrained by them by not buying such tickets.

 

[soil]

People do ignore laws and terms they don't like, such as speed limits on the road, copyright law when downloading, laws against the possession of narcotics and many other things.

The debate as a society is to what extent we punish people for not being terribly concerned about the letter of the law, which really very few people are except inasmuch as it is enforced.

Any kind of response to these issues that talks about the sanctity of t+cs, or the laws, or morals, is based in fantasy land.

A substantial proportion of people, for instance, would not buy a ticket for the train, if barriers, ticket checkers and penalties were removed.

 

[Starmill]

The TOCs suffer no financial penalty by stopping short, providing you are on your booked train. You have paid for the journey you have made/are making. It should not be more expensive to travel a shorter distance and, if it is, that is the TOC ripping the passenger off, not the passenger ripping the TOC off.

As I have just explained, this is not always the case!
If we could all use Advance tickets however we liked, it would be really easy to deprive TOCs of a lot of revenue.

 

[Goatboy]

If we could all use Advance tickets however we liked, it would be really easy to deprive TOCs of a lot of revenue.

Perhaps then the problem is a ticketing system that allows you to occupy a seat on Train A at 16:00 for 2 hours for less than occupying exactly the same seat on exactly the same train for 1 hour 45 minutes.

It is illogical, and when things are illogical they tend to lose public opinion and this sort of thing results.

 

[455driver]

So if I want to go from Waterloo to Salisbury but all the cheap tickets are sold so it would cost me £50.00, it is okay for my to buy the megatrain £1.00 ticket from Waterloo to Bristol and leave the train early at Salisbury is it?

I will be on the booked train so no issue there plus there will be an extra seat free from Salisbury to Bristol.


The terms of the ticket are clear (most of the time) so if you dont want to comply with those terms and conditions dont buy the ticket.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Perhaps then the problem is a ticketing system that allows you to occupy a seat on Train A at 16:00 for 2 hours for less than occupying exactly the same seat on exactly the same train for 1 hour 45 minutes.

It is illogical, and when things are illogical they tend to lose public opinion and this sort of thing results.

Exactly that. A few pages back I made the point that the correct price for anything is what someone is willing to pay and the other party is willing to sell for. Regardless of the nominal price of a full fare ticket or other possible things that haven't been sold, that seat has been sold for that price. In buying that ticket you aren't denying the railway the "correct fare" because the railway has set the fare as what you paid. Comparisons to full fare tickets no longer apply, this is yield management.

That seat was sold for lets say £20 as an example. If I sit in it for the whole journey the fare is £20. If I get off a stop before the end it's £20. If I don't travel at all it's £20. If I go a stop beyond it's £20 plus the fare between those two stops at the end.

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk 2

 

[AndyLandy]

Perhaps then the problem is a ticketing system that allows you to occupy a seat on Train A at 16:00 for 2 hours for less than occupying exactly the same seat on exactly the same train for 1 hour 45 minutes.

It is illogical, and when things are illogical they tend to lose public opinion and this sort of thing results.

This is exactly it. The majority of people won't ever accept that travelling short isn't acceptable. You ask anyone in the street if they think it's fair that you should be able to get off the train a stop early and the majority will tell you "Yes, that's fine"

No matter how much you make the point about yield management, the general public and the press are never going to buy it. The folks writing the terms and conditions for these tickets need to get a handle on this and work out a better solution, otherwise they're going to keep appearing in the news for "Charging hundreds of pounds, just for getting off a stop early" and the public are going to lap it up.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....A few pages back I made the point that the correct price for anything is what someone is willing to pay and the other party is willing to sell for....

And in this case the seller has determined that the price of stopping short is more than the cost of only going to the destination. The buyer did not take up the option to have flexibility at the time of purchase and went with an inflexible fare. They agreed to that fare for that specific journey, nothing else.

....Regardless of the nominal price of a full fare ticket or other possible things that haven't been sold, that seat has been sold for that price....

Incorrect, the journey was sold for that price, the seat had no value and remains the property of the ROSCO.

....In buying that ticket you aren't denying the railway the "correct fare" because the railway has set the fare as what you paid....

That depends on what the 'correct fare' is. A fare to Manchester only (no stopping short) might have been £20. A fare to Manchester that lets you get off at Stockport might have been £75. If you pay the £20 fare and get off at Stockport, have you paid the correct fare? No, because you agreed not to do so. Had you agreed that it was an option you would have paid £55 more.

Given that the train will run anyway, the loss to the railway is £55.

....Comparisons to full fare tickets no longer apply, this is yield management....

On the contrary, they are at the heart of the matter.

....That seat was sold for lets say £20 as an example. If I sit in it for the whole journey the fare is £20...

Yes, because that is what you agreed to do.

....If I get off a stop before the end it's £20....

No, because you have not paid for this journey.

....If I don't travel at all it's £20....

On the basis that the railway can't actually force you to travel at all, yes.

....If I go a stop beyond it's £20 plus the fare between those two stops at the end.

That is one way of doing it.