Ticketing Anomalies - Starting a journey short

[Old Timer]

It's irrelevant that the ticket is cheaper or not. The CofC has made no such distinction; and this was backed up by the former Rail Regulator over 10 years ago.

Here is the remainder of the quote that actually sends a different message.
"Having established with British Rail that there were no restrictions on the use of the cheaper tickets bought between Sevenoaks and High Brooms, I am glad to say BR have now backed down and issued an instruction to the retail staff amending the current anomaly in the Fares Manual".
Which I take to mean that the ticket prices were adjusted accordingly removing the anomally. The alternative would have been to amend the TEH.

Selective pasting and highlighting as previously done, does nothing to add to the strength of a case.

BR worked hard to ensure no such anomalies were present, or if there were then there was some sort of control measure.

ATOC don't seem to be bothered but ultimately it will come back to bite them hard because this is how fare evasion develops over time. Someone finds a loophole for want of a better word, exploits it then the mindset is there and they go looking for other ways to save money.

Some of the larger fare evasion cases in the 80s came about by men lending their season tickets to their wives (after the use of "W" was stopped on some spurious discrimination grounds), which we all know is illegal (but I am sure someone on here will want to debate that point), then came the old favourite of buying to the next station and over-travelling, which turned into the first and last stations, which then turned into travelling with no ticket.

One guy even used an early colour photocopier to copy his season ticket and gave them to friends to use.

Another common one was to carefully cut out the expiry date and use a home-made date stamp on coloured paper to extend the validity of the ticket.

All these sorts of incidents came about because someone realised there was a way of breaking the system and took it.

 

[yorkie]

ATOC don't seem to be bothered but ultimately it will come back to bite them hard because this is how fare evasion develops over time. Someone finds a loophole for want of a better word, exploits it then the mindset is there and they go looking for other ways to save money.

Yeah. Everyone saving money on train tickets is a fare evader, and everyone saving money in supermarkets is a shoplifter. Perhaps everyone in the whole country should be given a 1,000 pound fine to teach us all a lesson. 99% of the population has the evil mindset of wanting to save money. We should all be told off. Random checks should be made in supermarkets. Anyone caught saving money MUST be dealt with in a severe manner before it gets out of control.

 

[badzena]

I think I may have an insight here. The 1889 act (which I assume is still on the statute books as Old Timer says: a trawl through opsi.gov.uk would confirm that) refers to the fare for travel between two stations. The NRCoC, however, talk about holding a valid ticket for the journey made.

I agree with OT that the 1889 act makes starting short illegal. Following the letter of the law, it also makes stopping short illegal, in having paid either less than the fare for the actual journey, or perhaps having paid more. (i.e. overpayment is not the 'correct' fare)

Could it be argued that there are multiple correct fares between two stations, some which ATOC are not even aware of?

 

[Old Timer]

Yeah. Everyone saving money on train tickets is a fare evader, and everyone saving money in supermarkets is a shoplifter. Perhaps everyone in the whole country should be given a 1,000 pound fine to teach us all a lesson. 99% of the population has the evil mindset of wanting to save money. We should all be told off. Random checks should be made in supermarkets. Anyone caught saving money MUST be dealt with in a severe manner before it gets out of control.

Not my point at all, as you well know :roll::roll::roll::roll:

If you are going to try to make a comparison then at least make it relevant and comparable.

Sarcasm does nothing to improve your case and only serves to damage your credibility. We both know that you have much knowledge on rail fares, and it would be a shame to spoil that respect.

 

[Failed Unit]

Look I know that the commuters around here who travel to Guildford actually buy a ticket to the next station Farncombe, which means it's cheaper and that they can just say they're breaking their journey if asked. Yeah Right!

I remember Barry Doe was highlighting a few cases recently. Can't remember exact stations involved but it was basically tickets priced by XC in the South East are more expensive than tickets priced by First Great Western. I think he was saying something like Bournemouth - Reading season ticket is more expensive than a Poole - Reading season ticket.

Whatever if these loopholes exist then they should be used. Fare simplification hasn't worked, in fact I feel now they are more complicated then they were before with all the differing restrictions. Look the London - Scotland market, the Super off peak on Virgin has a less restriction than than the East Coast equivalent, it is in the travelling publics benefit to know about this. Yes they may close them as a result but at least we have benefited in the meantime.

Don't know how many people saw the recent press release from London Midland about introducing restrictions on cheap day returns in the evening peak stating "other operators have done it" :roll: So that is a good justification then. I wouldn't mind such a restriction if it was the same UK wide, not 16:45 in Scotland, 16:30 in the Midlands, 16:00 in London (for example) Even worse in London varing depending on what route you are using.

 

[EltonRoad]

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:

Your argument falls down, because I can show that I have paid a "correct fare" for my journey.

For example: if I'm making a peak-time journey from Chester to London Euston, and it's cheaper for me to buy an off-peak single from Rhyl, and I can quote the NCoC that state it is a valid thing to do to join further down the line, you don't have an argument.

Of course there is intent to save money, but it's not theft. I am acting wholly within the rules.

Your argument centres around this being illegal as it is not the "correct fare" for the journey being undertaken. However how do you - Old Timer - define "correct fare"? The answer is - you don't. The TOC does.

A Chester to Euston single is a correct fare, but not "the" correct fare. There are several fares that are valid for that journey, including buying a ticket from Rhyl, and I've chosen the cheapest one. In doing this I'm acting wholly within the railway's own terms and conditions, which means I have bought a valid (and correct) fare.

 

[Old Timer]

The correct fare is from Chester not from Rhyll as you fully accept yourself.

If you buy a Rhyll ticket to travel from Chester because it is cheaper you are obtaining the journey by dishonesty, plain and simple. You should be paying the correct fare for the journey.

As I continue to state a railway ticket is a legal contract for the journey you are undertaking so you can never undertake a Rhyll to Euston journey because you did not board the train at Rhyll. The fact that you purchased a cheaper ticket from another station is prima facie section 5 of the 1889 Act. This requires that you pay the fare for the journey from "the station whence he commenced" as it so nicely puts it.

If ATOC are willing to turn a blind eye to it, then fine but in strict compliance with the letter of the Law you are guilty of fare evasion and in BR days you would have been "Section 5ed" and taken to Court as others not just me have confirmed.

Seen it happen, done it.

I propose that the Mods should lock this topic now. It is going nowhere and just becoming repetitive.

In any case I have made my point repeatedly to the state of exhaustion, and it is now taking up too much of my (limited) free time.

Good night all.

 

[nedchester]

What happened in BR days is vastly different from now. For a start people are a little more consumer aware than back then (thanks to money saving websites)

Also people are also more likely to challenge being taken to court over something like this. I suspect that if something like this did go to court now then the TOC would lose.

 

[dan_atki]

I propose that the Mods should lock this topic now. It is going nowhere and just becoming repetitive.

We don't lock topics at request - we do it when we deem it necessary and we do not deem it necessary in this case (yet).

If you're becoming fed up of it, I suggest you stop reading/replying to the thread .

 

[yorksrob]

My gut feeling on this issue is that any ban on starting or stopping short is counter intuitive and illogical for the following reasons.

If I were to travel further than my ticket allowed, or on a route that wasn't allowed or even at a time that wasn't allowed, I would clearly be occupying a place on the train that I wasn't entitled to. Starting or stopping short is different because I have paid for that place on the train from start to finish and I should have the right to decide how far I use it. It's obviously not the same as breaking a journey as there is the additional issue as not having the right to get back on the train.

I would further argue that how is somebody stopping or starting a journey short any different from a businessman who pays for an advanced fare and then decides not to take up his seat?, or for example myself two months ago when I missed my train and had to get a coach. Are we not also paying an incorrect fare by "travelling short" and should we not also be punished?

My view has always been back into BR days that it is the railway that sets the fares and if it can't sort out these anomolies itself it's its own fault and therefore not for the public to wet nurse them.

Please note that this is not a comment on what I believe to be the letter of the law at the moment - there are far more knowledgeable people who can argue that. Merely my honest opinion.

 

[Darandio]

Having read through every post in the thread (it took a while!) it seems to me that the ticket is perfectly valid.

The main thing that concerned me was the quotes that people are defrauding a TOC by using various different practices so here is a different one.

Let's say one morning I need to do the following (all singles) :-

Redcar Central to Darlington £5.90
Darlington to Newcastle £7.00
Newcastle to Morpeth £2.00
Morpeth to Darlington £8.00

The total for these fares is £22.90 and revenue will presumably be shared accordingly between the TOC's that I used.

What actually happened was........

I set off at 08:45am and have completed this trip by 11:45am, but, I haven't actually paid these prices. I have a Tyne Tees Day Ranger for £17.00 that enables me to make all these trips and I still can do several variations to various destinations until midnight.

Does this now mean that by buying a "Northern" ticket and travelling on several different TOC's, i.e XC, FTPE, EC and Northern that I have done something wrong because I have avoided paying certain fares?

The answer of course is no, I am perfectly entitled to travel within the means of this ticket but some posts on here seem to suggest that despite a ticket being perfectly valid, the fact that a TOC is being prevented from maximum revenue, the ticket is infact invalid, despite the ticket being proved to be the opposite.

 

[Greenback]

What happened in BR days is vastly different from now.

That's the point I was attempting to make in an earlier post. I don't think any of the current staff that have posted have said that it is illegal in any way to start short unless the restrictions on the ticket itself do not allow (ie Advance tickets, no break of journey). Old Timer is presenting the 'correct fare between two points' view that I found still prevalent amongst longer serving retail staff when I joined the railway in 1998. I can understand that, as the changes to the terms and conditions had been quite recent at that point. However, clarification was issued before I left the industry in 2001.

In my opinion, the fact that these discrepancies exist are a result of the ridiculous fares system we have that the TOC's are happy with and readily defend. The really do not have any basis in which to claim the moral high ground!

The fact that most XC priced fares are higher than other TOC's is an example. By starting short, the customer can take advantage of a flow priced by a different TOC, often saving quite a bit of money. Why should the consumer be treated badly, classed as a fare evader and criminal simply because they are taking advantage of competition, which was, after all, one of the supposed benefits of privatisation? They are only disdvantaged by having an XC priced flow in the first place because of an accident of history and internal BR accounting!