Ticketing Anomalies - Starting a journey short

[Mojo]

No it's not! B is an intermediate station between A and C. The CofC says in the simplest of terms that it is allowed.

 

[yorkie]

No it's not! B is an intermediate station between A and C. The CofC says in the simplest of terms that it is allowed.

Some rail staff do not believe in adhering to the National Conditions of Carriage. Some staff believe that we, as non-staff members, do not have the right to quote from it and give advice from it. I find that view disappointing.

 

[theblackwatch]

The NCoC assumes that you have paid the correct fare for the journey, and that this is more than that from the shorter station. It does not assume deliberate attempt at fare evasion which is what you continue to suggest.

Tickets which are generally cheaper in such circumstances do have restrictions placed upon them I am sure.

As you have been told before and ignored, the NCOC state:

16. Starting, breaking or ending a journey at intermediate stations
You may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) at any intermediate station, as long as the ticket you hold is valid for the trains you want to use. You may also end your journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) before the destination shown on the ticket. However, these rights may not apply to some types of tickets for which a break of journey is prohibited, in which case the relevant Train Companies will make this clear in their notices and other publications.

I have highlighted the areas which you appear to have missed. Given that there is no restriction regarding break of journey on the Chester-Shrewsbury ticket, can you show where else, in the National Conditions of Carriage, it prohibits starting the journey at an intermediate station? I look forward to your reply, sticking to the question.

 

[Old Timer]

The fact that the CofC says you can do it?

Can you answer the below?

1. Do you agree that the CofC says "You may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) at any intermediate station?"

2. On a railway line that goes A > B > C > D do you agree that a ticket from A to D allows you to travel A > D?

3. On a railway line that goes A > B > C > D do you agree that B is an intermediate station between A > D?

4. If I get on a train at B, intending to alight at D would I be starting a journey?

5. If you said yes to (2), (3) and (4), then how can you dispute the legality of it?

The issue is whether the purchase of the ticket is to deliberately avoid paying the higher price by buying a cheaper ticket from a station further away.

If you do not pay the correct fare for the journey being undertaken, then you are committing theft, represented by the loss to the TOC.

If you pay £8 for a ticket for a journey that should cost £10 then there has been a loss of revenenue, as well as the fact that you have not paid the correct fare for the journey. The correct fare for the journey is £10 not £8.

Of course none of these things are ever totally clean cut except in the case of out and out fraud as suggested by some on here.

In the case you mentioned the passenger is undertaking a journey from C to A. The question is has there been a deliberate attempt to avoid paying the fare, and I would argue not.

I am not so unrealistic as to believe that everything should be totally ruled by Law but there is a big difference between the situation you describe and someone on here suggesting that a person purchases a cheaper ticket in order for a third person to delibertaely avoid paying the correct fare. It is irrelevant that there may be fare differences. The fact is that there will be a loss to the TOC and this then constitutes fare evasion.

 

[Lampshade]

Also provided you're not booked on that service, simply changing trains at an intermediate station does not constitute BoJ. On many occasions I have been going to Preston on a packed TPE out of Manchester and got off at Salford Crescent or Bolton to change onto a less overcrowded service. The guard on the next train was fine with it even though I could quite easily have started the journey there.

 

[yorkie]

The issue is whether the purchase of the ticket is to deliberately avoid paying the higher price by buying a cheaper ticket from a station further away..

So you accept that it the Chester-Shrews ticket is valid for starting at Crewe, but that although it is valid you can be prosecuted for avoiding the higher priced ticket by obtaining a lower priced valid ticket. Correct?

 

[Old Timer]

As you have been told before and ignored, the NCOC state:

16. Starting, breaking or ending a journey at intermediate stations
You may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) at any intermediate station, as long as the ticket you hold is valid for the trains you want to use. You may also end your journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) before the destination shown on the ticket. However, these rights may not apply to some types of tickets for which a break of journey is prohibited, in which case the relevant Train Companies will make this clear in their notices and other publications.

I have highlighted the areas which you appear to have missed. Given that there is no restriction regarding break of journey on the Chester-Shrewsbury ticket, can you show where else, in the National Conditions of Carriage, it prohibits starting the journey at an intermediate station? I look forward to your reply, sticking to the question.

WHAT PART OF "IT IS AN OFFENCE TO AVOID PAYING THE CORRECT FARE FOR THE JOURNEY BEING UNDERTAKEN" DO PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM NOT UNDERSTAND ?

PLEASE SHOW ME THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO LOSS OF REVENUE TO THE TOC

REGULATION OF RAILWAY ACT 1889.....THE CPS STATE .""Intent to avoid payment" in Section 5 does not mean a dishonest intent, but an intent to avoid payment of the sum actually due.


I GIVE UP I REALLY DO :roll::roll::roll:

 

[theblackwatch]

WHAT PART OF "IT IS AN OFFENCE TO AVOID PAYING THE CORRECT FARE FOR THE JOURNEY BEING UNDERTAKEN" DO PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM NOT UNDERSTAND ?

PLEASE SHOW ME THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO LOSS OF REVENUE TO THE TOC

REGULATION OF RAILWAY ACT 1889......""Intent to avoid payment" in Section 5 does not mean a dishonest intent, but an intent to avoid payment of the sum actually due.


I GIVE UP I REALLY DO :roll::roll::roll:

But the fare is correct, as it is valid. How can one be 'avoiding payment' when one has purchased a ticket which is entirely valid within the NCoC! I will repeat:

Given that there is no restriction regarding break of journey on the Chester-Shrewsbury ticket, can you show where else, in the National Conditions of Carriage, it prohibits starting the journey at an intermediate station? I look forward to your reply, sticking to the question.

And there is no need to shout.

 

[Old Timer]

But the fare is correct, as it is valid. How can one be 'avoiding payment' when one has purchased a ticket which is entirely valid within the NCoC! I will repeat:

Given that there is no restriction regarding break of journey on the Chester-Shrewsbury ticket, can you show where else, in the National Conditions of Carriage, it prohibits starting the journey at an intermediate station? I look forward to your reply, sticking to the question.

And there is no need to shout.

Are you avoiding paying the CORRECT fare B to A Yes or No ?

Here is the relevant of Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 for clarity. The bold is mine.

5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare
(1)Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 1 on the standard scale][F2 [F3level 2 on the standard scale]].

 

[theblackwatch]

Are you avoiding paying the CORRECT fare B to A Yes or No ?

Here is the relevant of Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 for clarity. The bold is mine.

5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare
(1)Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 1 on the standard scale][F2 [F3level 2 on the standard scale]].

The answer is YES, as the ticket from C to A is perfectly valid to travel from B to A - therefore the fare cannot be described as incorrect. I see once again you didn't quote from the NCoC as I asked.

I was surpirised you replied as you said you had given up.

 

[Mojo]

In that case, then I'm in serious trouble. I've bought a 400g tin of chopped tomatoes (as they are cheaper than 200g tins), but my recipe only requires 200g. I'm not too keen on chopped tomatoes on their own, so I'm going to throw away the remaining 200g as I'm not planning on using them any time soon and if they sit in my fridge any longer, they'll go off.

 

[yorkie]

Old Timer - I note you are not quoting from the NCoC. Is this because you feel the NCoC does not apply, or is it is over-ruled, or some other reason? I am interested to know the reason, if you can provide the reason it may help us understand your position. Thanks.

 

[Mojo]

Does the CofC say "you may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) at any intermediate station?" Yes

Is joining a train at station B start[ing] your journey at an intermediate station? Yes

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[323235]

Perhaps YOU should read my posts properly

I have and it still doesn't stand up, as the National Conditions of Carridge (i.e. the rules of the railway) say that it is perfectly acceptable

so therefore it is legal and legit

there's simply no legal basis for your arguement
and no fraud is being commited
as long as Break of Journey is permitted

 

[Lampshade]

I do see the point OT is trying to make, it costs more to go from Crewe - Shrewbury than it does to go from Chester - Shrewsbury via Crewe. If you have the latter ticket you shouldn't make the former journey (i.e. start from Crewe on a ticket from Chester as it's cheaper).

This does sound a little weird actually :???:

NRCofC says you can start from an intermediate station, Crewe in this instance being an intermediate station, but you'd have to travel from Chester in order to get to Crewe so what really are we arguing about?

 

[Old Timer]

I am giving up BUT no-one has yet answered the question as to whether you are deliberately avoiding paying the correct fare B to A. If you are you are in contravention of Section 5.

I posted the link, I think some of you need to read the bit that says "Pay his fare from the place whence he started "

You didn't pay the fare from B you paid a cheaper fare from C thus failing to pay the correct fare. You thus deprive the TOC of the correct fare.

Why is this such a problem for you guys to understand ??

Mojo
My respect for you is somewhat waining with the examples you give. There is no need to be sarcastic or at least if you want to be then at least be sarcastic on a like for like comparison. In the examples that you and others have given, the only loss has ben to YOU. In the case in dispute there has been a loss of revenue to the TOC and the person travelling has failed to pay the correct fare for the journey they are making or as Section 5 so eloquently puts it "from whence he started".

In my world there can be no argument that the correct fare has been evaded, and there is absolutely no doubt that this Forum is clearly condoning deliberate fare evasion by suggesting ways in which people can avoid paying the correct fare.

We all know that buying aticket from C to A is simply a means of avoiding paying the correct fare. There can be no debate about that. It is both morally and legally wrong in my view. Maybe you should seek a properly trained legal opinion ?

 

[yorkie]

I do see the point OT is trying to make, it costs more to go from Crewe - Shrewbury than it does to go from Chester - Shrewsbury via Crewe. If you have the latter ticket you shouldn't make the former journey (i.e. start from Crewe on a ticket from Chester as it's cheaper).

Why shouldn't you? NCoC says its' valid.

NRCofC says you can start from an intermediate station, Crewe in this instance being an intermediate station, but you'd have to travel from Chester in order to get to Crewe so what really are we arguing about?

No, the ticket is valid to start "short" at Crewe. NCoC states that.

Old Timer does not appear to be denying that the NCoC allows it. It appears that Old Timer is ignoring the NCoC. That's how I read it...

 

[Old Timer]

Why shouldn't you? NCoC says its' valid.


No, the ticket is valid to start "short" at Crewe. NCoC states that.

Old Timer does not appear to be denying that the NCoC allows it. It appears that Old Timer is ignoring the NCoC. That's how I read it...

Good night :roll::roll:

 

[yorkie]

In my world there can be no argument that the correct fare has been evaded, and there is absolutely no doubt that this Forum is clearly condoning deliberate fare evasion by suggesting ways in which people can avoid paying the correct fare.

We only "condone" starting short because the NCoC specifically states that starting short is valid. We are quoting from the NCoC. You cannot deny that NCoC states it is valid. The question is, why are you ignoring the NCoC? is it because you feel the NCoC does not apply?

 

[dan_atki]

We all know that buying aticket from C to A is simply a means of avoiding paying the correct fare. There can be no debate about that. It is both morally and legally wrong in my view. Maybe you should seek a properly trained legal opinion ?

A railway line is thus: C - B - A

A ticket from C to A is cheaper than B to A.

Say I wanted to travel B > A > B > C. Am I then expected to buy a B to A return and then a B to C single or am I allowed in this instance to buy a C to A return without being accused of avoiding paying the correct fare?

What about if I undertook the above journey unaware that C to A is cheaper than B to A and wanted only two tickets instead of three as I misplace things? Can it be called 'deliberate' then?

 

[Mojo]

In my world there can be no argument that the correct fare has been evaded, and there is absolutely no doubt that this Forum is clearly condoning deliberate fare evasion by suggesting ways in which people can avoid paying the correct fare.

How can it be? The 'Introduction' of the CofC says

When you buy a ticket to travel on the railway network you enter into an agreement with the Train Companies...these National Rail Conditions of Carriage are also part of that agreement.

The CofC says that you can start short, therefore it is a correct fare.

 

[evil_hippo]

I really am starting to wonder about this Forum.

If you buy a ticket at a cheaper price from a station further out, and then use it for a shorter journey you are committing fraud in law because you are not paying the correct price of the journey being undertaken. The legal phrase is "obtaining goods or services by deception", and when I was an SM we had the odd case which we pursued to Prosecution.

Once again the fact is that you enter into a Contract with the Railway TOC for the journey you are making, and therefore you are required to pay the fare for that journey as part of that Contract. Using a ticket from a station further out which is cheaper is therefore negating the Contract as you are NOT travelling from that station.

Having re-read the Conditions of Carriage they appear to assume that passengers are acting in a responsible manner and are not trying to work the system.

I have to say it appears to me that a number of people on here are deliberating encouraging fraudulent travel, yet these are the very same people who whinge loudly when experienced staff talk of deliberate fare evasion :roll::roll: by complaining that we treat everyone as being on the fiddle.

Sadly there is much here to back up our opinions.

I am really starting to wonder about you.

If the rule is wrong, break that rule. It is normally very grey and difficult to define whether a rule is wrong, and therefore authority should probably stand. However, where a rail fare for a shorter distance costs more, it is impossible to argue that what the powers that be decided you should pay is correct!

Sure, revenue is being lost, but I can find few objective arguments to tell me that the amount of revenue presently collected from passengers is, in itself, fair.

In fact, it is economically efficient to have loopholes, as those who find the present fare falls within their reservation price won't spend hours looking for loopholes, while those who find it does not fall within their reservation price, and therefore might otherwise not be able to travel at all, are most likely to find those loopholes. It is always economically desirable for the producer (and the consumer, disregarding consumer surpluses) to have everyone pay as close as possible to their reservation price. Therefore, economic logic indicates that exploitation of these loopholes produce a beneficial situation for all, and a detrimental system for no one.

You go ahead and blindly stumble about the world doing every silly thing a man in a suit tells you to do. But I won't be joining you.

 

[badzena]

I'm no rail employee or expert, but yorkie's position seems completely logical.

There could be several tickets that are valid for a journey from Station C to Station E each with different fares. You see this with Anytime and Off peak tickets. We accept that as long the ticket is valid for the journey being taken, and the customer is entitled to use it they have paid the correct fare, yes?

So why should using a ticket from Station A to E be considered theft if it is valid for the journey C to E? The fare the customer has chosen to pay is correct, even if it is lower than the fare of ticket C to E.

 

[yorkie]

If the rule is wrong, break that rule. It is normally very grey and difficult to define whether a rule is wrong, and therefore authority should probably stand. However, where a rail fare for a shorter distance costs more, it is impossible to argue that what the powers that be decided you should pay is correct!.

Well, the NCoC has rules on the subject and by those rules, it is valid to start short. So no question of rule breaking needs to come into it.

 

[evil_hippo]

Well, the NCoC has rules on the subject and by those rules, it is valid to start short. So no question of rule breaking needs to come into it.

I was referring more to the "rule" being "the fare from x to y is that amount", i.e. what the railway rules that someone making a journey from x to y ought to pay, as this is what the argument was based upon.

 

[tony_mac]

you had best not use a 1st ALR to go from Newquay to Inverness and back then!

 

[yorkie]

you had best not use a 1st ALR to go from Newquay to Inverness and back then!

Ah yes, if you go via Birstol the fare is £924 FOR. This is £274 more than a 7 day ALR.

This shows intention to AVOID the correct £924 fare. This is punishable with a £5,000 fine, a 30-day jail sentence, and a criminal record for fare evasion. A 7 day All Line Rover costs £650. This means you are avoiding a fare of £274. This is very serious. Although I accept that the All Line Rover is valid, under the conditions of carriage, the rail industry experts have decreed that the conditions of carriage is null and void. Therefore, you are obtaining services by deception by carrying out a sophisticated fraud whereby you pay less than the correct fare. You are suggesting fare evasion, and therefore the thought police will arrest you shortly. You cannot appeal. You will be automatically cautioned and prosecuted. Resistance is futile!

HOWEVER you will be let off if you travel around the country constantly for the duration of your ALR. This means that you were not intending to avoid the £924 fare and were genuinely wanting to travel on all lines. NOTE: ALL lines must be covered. NO starting short, NO finishing short. ALL LINES or else. I will be checking!!! (YES that includes Heysham Port. YES that includes Denton. No excuses. What part of All Lines can you not understand?)

(Meant with good humour, with apologies to anyone who may be offended, please don't be!)

 

[amn140174]

Here is the relevant of Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 for clarity. The bold is mine.

5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare
(1)Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started.

I think this is relating to a penalty for not having a valid ticket. And the starting bit is for saying you started at B when you really travelled further from C, so your avoiding the payment between C and B, and trying to pay the fare from B to A only.

 

[chris parkinson]

Cracking discussion - thanks chaps.

Am most intrigued by this flimsy 'depriving TOC of revenue' stance.

Government policy is for rail travel to be made attractive and fares reasonable, fair and transparent for the passenger.

• TOCs / DfT to increase prices a little above RPI, but leave themselves at the mercy of the market - fine.
• TOCs / DfT to price tickets to rationalise demand where necessary - fine.
• TOCs / DfT to regulate tickets to ensure inelastic demand interests are safeguarded - fine.
• TOCs / DfT to segment the fares structure into thousands of fragments and hide behind a high and mighty moral stance when minor anomalies (or quite intentional discrepancies) arise? Nonsense!

 

[John @ home]

Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 ...

5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare
(1)Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 1 on the standard scale][F2 [F3level 2 on the standard scale]].

All this requires is that a passenger must either:
produce and deliver up a ticket showing that the fare is paid or
pay the fare from the place they started or
give the officer their name and address.

It does not prove that the ticket held by the passenger must show the passenger's starting station as the origin printed on the ticket. It has nothing to say on that matter.

But the National Conditions of Carriage do.