Travel Beyond Validity...

[sheff1]

Do such things exist?

Certainly, but it would appear that the system used to show route permissions for rail tickets is not one of them.

There is no point adding a timing point if there is no TRUST reporting facility at that point.

I have no idea what TRUST is, but the implication seems to be that reporting the actual position of real trains is somehow involved which, if that is the case, is just bizarre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Will involve infrastructure changes. Not as easy as imagined.

I'm sure a negative easement could fix it.

 

[duncanp]

Your suggested course of action may well result in an outlay of hundreds (thousands?) of pounds to get a specialist solicitor, take months and involve appearing in court.

Not necessarily. If you write a strongly worded letter to the TOC inviting them to consider how they would explain to a court that they can sell a ticket for a route which, if someone uses that route, they would be liable to a penalty fare, I think it is very likely that they will not proceed with a prosecution.

Many solicitors give a free initial interview anyway, and there are several forums where you can do this on line.

Yes, it is less stressful to roll over and cough up the fine, but that is giving the TOC a licence to extort money from the customer.

As for the earlier comment that RPIs "..don't feel that it is right.." Either it is right or it isn't. Your feelings don't enter into the matter.

 

[Chew Chew]

Had a similar situation to the OP last year where I tried to follow the itinerary on the TOC website for a journey only to be told it wasn't valid when I tried to take a BoJ.

Luckily being in Scotland and on Scotrail there are no penalty fares here so I just had to pay for the a single ticket and then engage with Scotrail to get my money back.

Was a pain trying to get my money back.

 

[bb21]

I'm sure a negative easement could fix it.

Oh Neil.

You really need to read the whole thread.

 

[najaB]

Not necessarily....

... I think it is very likely that...

When it is your money and your time then you are more than welcome to deal in probabilities and likelihoods.

Since, in the case, it is neither please don't describe the 'best' course of action as one that can result in significant loss (financial and time) to the OP when there is a simpler and cheaper course of action available, which is guaranteed to resolve the matter.

 

[jkdd77]

When it is your money and your time then you are more than welcome to deal in probabilities and likelihoods.

Since, in the case, it is neither please don't describe the 'best' course of action as one that can result in significant loss (financial and time) to the OP when there is a simpler and cheaper course of action available, which is guaranteed to resolve the matter.

Paying £20 is neither cheaper nor simpler than paying the amount actually owed, which is nothing at all. We have seen many valid appeals rejected in the past on this forum, (and cases where the amount of a 'refund' still leaves the successful appellant out-of-pocket relative to what they should have paid) so there is no guarantee the OP will get his/ her money back if he pays and appeals; in other words, you are incorrect in stating that paying and appealing is guaranteed to resolve the matter in a satisfactory manner.

I think that the chances of the TOC prosecuting are very slim indeed, given that the ticket presented was valid for the journey made. Even if they did, the OP would certainly not need to spend hundreds, let alone thousands, on a solicitor when he/she could get an acquittal representing him/ herself.

I would appeal anyway, and promptly, but, in contrast to a case where the passenger is, or even might be, in the wrong, I would advise against paying pending the determination of the appeal, since any so-called 'administration fees' for late or non-payment would be wholly unenforceable in this specific instance.

If the appeal is rejected, the OP could still choose to pay at that point in order to avoid the possibility of prosecution, however remote, and then pursue various avenues to recover the money paid.

If the appeal is upheld, then the OP has avoided giving the TOC an undeserved interest-free loan of £20.

 

[najaB]

Paying £20 is neither cheaper nor simpler than paying the amount actually owed, which is nothing at all.

I agree that nothing is owed, however paying the PF will stop the issue escalating. As paulweaver pointed out above, a outstanding PF request can be withdrawn at any time and replaced by a prosecution.

We have seen many valid appeals rejected in the past on this forum, (and cases where the amount of a 'refund' still leaves the successful appellant out-of-pocket relative to what they should have paid) so there is no guarantee the OP will get his/ her money back if he pays and appeals;

As you sasy, an appeal can be unsuccessful. At which point the amount the OP will have to pay may very well be higher as most (though not all) PFs schemes offer a discount for prompt payment, and there may be additional costs added by the TOC.

n other words, you are incorrect in stating that paying and appealing is guaranteed to resolve the matter in a satisfactory manner.

I didn't say it would resolve it in a satisfactory manner, I said it would resolve it.

 

[sheff1]

I agree that nothing is owed, however paying the PF will stop the issue escalating. As paulweaver pointed out above, a outstanding PF request can be withdrawn at any time and replaced by a prosecution.

Only in the Kafkaesque world of GB rail ticketing would the possibility of being prosecuted for travelling on a valid ticket be put forward as a reason to pay an amount that is not owed.

 

[najaB]

Only in the Kafkaesque world of GB rail ticketing would the possibility of being prosecuted for travelling on a valid ticket be put forward as a reason to pay an amount that is not owed.

The prosecution would likely not be successful, but again that is more hassle and stress that can be avoided by paying and then reclaiming.

 

[bnm]

If a prosecution would not be successful then one shouldn't be mounted.

OP. My advice is pay nothing and just complain. You have the evidence your journey was valid. Ensure that is added to your complaint. And keep copies of correspondence. Don't deal with the matter over the phone.

Somebody who has done nothing wrong should not have to pay a penny.

No one on this thread has addressed the issue of preventing this happening again to someone who may take the RPI's word as gospel. So the OP should also demand (that's demand. Not request, not ask) that the TOC re-brief their staff to prevent any re-occurrence. Getting written confirmation that it won't happen again to anybody.

Don't forget that delay repay claim as well. You were delayed, inconvenienced and embarrassed through no fault of your own.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh Neil.



You really need to read the whole thread.

Not sure I follow. Why could a negative easement not be used to solve it?

 

[najaB]

Somebody who has done nothing wrong should not have to pay a penny.

I agree with that principle.

However as we have often seen - and you have experienced - what should happen and what does happen are often different. By paying and claiming the OP is guaranteed of no more hassle than appealing to get their £20 back. There is not an assured hassle free path if they don't pay.

I suppose it comes down to a question of what the OP values most - they now hopefully have enough information to make that decision for themselves.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No one on this thread has addressed the issue of preventing this happening again to someone who may take the RPI's word as gospel.

There has been discussion of if this itinerary should have been offered in the first place or if it was a fault in the online route planner. It isn't yet clear which it is.

If it is actually a fault with the online system, then the RPI was correctly applying the routing guide.

 

[35B]

There has been discussion of if this itinerary should have been offered in the first place or if it was a fault in the online route planner. It isn't yet clear which it is.

If it is actually a fault with the online system, then the RPI was correctly applying the routing guide.

I thought that if NRE shows a routing, it is by definition valid. In which case, how can the RPI be correctly applying the routing guide?

 

[najaB]

I thought that if NRE shows a routing, it is by definition valid. In which case, how can the RPI be correctly applying the routing guide?

The fact that NRE displays an itinerary doesn't mean that it is 'legal' according to the routeing guide. Like any computer system, certain input data will result in an invalid output.

The industry accepts this and should always accept a NRE-generated itinerary, but that doesn't mean that the RPI was wrong in their application of the routeing guide.

 

[35B]

Understood, but my understanding was that in the event of conflict, an NRE output would be definitive?

 

[najaB]

Understood, but my understanding was that in the event of conflict, an NRE output would be definitive?

Yes, but the RPI didn't have time to / didn't choose to consult NRE at the time.

 

[35B]

Point taken

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but the RPI didn't have time to / didn't choose to consult NRE at the time.

If a passenger said "NRE said it was OK" consulting NRE, or asking the passenger to show it on their phone or similar, would seem a good start. That's what any other business would do.

Certain RPIs prefer to incriminate first, ask questions later. It is incredibly passenger unfriendly, particularly given that nothing on the ticket or displayed at the point of sale says anything about doubling back being prohibited, nor is there any real logic to a layman that it should be.

 

[najaB]

If a passenger said "NRE said it was OK" consulting NRE, or asking the passenger to show it on their phone or similar, would seem a good start. That's what any other business would do.

I agree it would be nice, but when you have a train full of passengers to get through and only a few minutes between stops, the niceties sometimes get lost.

It is incredibly passenger unfriendly, particularly given that nothing on the ticket or displayed at the point of sale says anything about doubling back being prohibited, nor is there any real logic to a layman that it should be.

I disagree with you there. 'Layman's logic' says that a ticket from A to B is valid for a journey from A to B, rather than A to C (via B) and then back to B.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree it would be nice, but when you have a train full of passengers to get through and only a few minutes between stops, the niceties sometimes get lost.

Checking that you are doing your job properly when someone has introduced a doubt is not a nicety, it is an absolute essential. If in doubt, leniency is the only option.

That used to be how the railway worked. These days it's worse than bus drivers who typically refuse anything they haven't seen before. At least with a bus it is a simple refusal of travel, not a Penalty Fare or possible criminal case. (Even if the prosecution would not succeed, it's still stress). Passengers being treated as criminals because they followed information given to them by the railway in good faith, IOW. Unacceptable in any form.

FWIW, I thought more about this and it would seem a very simple IT "problem" to, using the NRE backend, produce a mobile website that takes the input of the ticket details (possibly automatically using the new barcodes where in use) and the point of the inspection, and returns a simple "yes" or "no". No question then.

I disagree with you there. 'Layman's logic' says that a ticket from A to B is valid for a journey from A to B, rather than A to C (via B) and then back to B.

Layman's logic says that a ticket from A to B is valid for the fastest journey at any given time from A to B, unless it specifically says otherwise, because a typical passenger's primary requirement is to travel from point A to point B as quickly as is feasible. This is emphasized further by old style tickets that say "ANY PERMITTED" in the route field, which again for the layman suggests that any route is permitted (new ones have a better wording).

Layman's logic would probably say that, having chosen the double-back, leaving the station at the outer point would not be acceptable.

I do accept the problems with allowing it (though think these need to be solved with a more zonal style of fares structure) but they are not obvious to someone who has never used the railway before at all.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I agree it would be nice, but when you have a train full of passengers to get through and only a few minutes between stops, the niceties sometimes get lost.

Then the passenger should be given the benefit of the doubt if the member of staff is not willing to do their job correctly.

 

[najaB]

Then the passenger should be given the benefit of the doubt if the member of staff is not willing to do their job correctly.

Ah, but the thing is - we don't know that they didn't do it correctly. The route taken by the passenger may well have been invalid and the OP has already said that (s)he didn't mention NRE.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Ah, but the thing is - we don't know that they didn't do it correctly. The route taken by the passenger may well have been invalid and the OP has already said that (s)he didn't mention NRE.

1 - I don't think the OP has specifically said they didn't mention NRE. They did say they mentioned the Trainline though, and the same should apply for that. Any legit itinerary from a ticket retailer should be accepted as valid. No ifs or buts. If a passenger claims they bought their ticket from a retailer with a specific itinerary then the RPI is not doing their job if they refuse to accept that and refuse to even check.

2 - In any case it sounds like the RPI simply wouldn't accept any explanation anyway. In their eyes the OP didn't have a valid ticket for their journey and that is that - "There was little interest shown in my explanations".

 

[najaB]

Any legit itinerary from a ticket retailer should be accepted as valid. No ifs or buts. If a passenger claims they bought their ticket from a retailer with a specific itinerary...

This passenger hasn't said that they bought their ticket from a retailer with a specific itinerary. They said they make this journey weekly but used the itinerary on NRE to explain the journey they take.

2 - In any case it sounds like the RPI simply wouldn't accept any explanation anyway. In their eyes the OP didn't have a valid ticket for their journey and that is that - "There was little interest shown in my explanations".

I'm happy that you are able to make judgements of the professionalism of an RPI after only hearing one person's second-hand description of their demeanor and behaviour.

 

[sheff1]

The fact that NRE displays an itinerary doesn't mean that it is 'legal' according to the routeing guide. Like any computer system, certain input data will result in an invalid output.

The industry accepts this and should always accept a NRE-generated itinerary, but that doesn't mean that the RPI was wrong in their application of the routeing guide.

I disagree. The Routeing Guide is clear. In Section A, before you get anywhere near Routeing Points or Maps the text reads

Please note that the fare routes data and maps in the National Routeing Guide are generated from the same data used in the Journey Planner at www.nationalrail.co.uk Therefore, in the case of uncertainty, a route may be checked inputting the relevant origin, destination, interchange and intended via points at that site

If the RPI applies the above, and checks the route for Chelmsford to Hatfield Peveral via Witham at NRE, they will find that NRE confirms it is valid. If the RPI believes the output is wrong due to a programming fault they should raise the matter via the appropriate internal channels, NOT issue a PF to a traveller using a valid ticket.

If RPI didn't have time to / didn't choose to consult NRE at the time then they are not applying the Routeing Guide correctly.

 

[najaB]

I disagree. The Routeing Guide is clear. In Section A, before you get anywhere near Routeing Points or Maps the text reads...

If it were that simple we wouldn't have fares experts, and wouldn't even need a routeing guide - the only advice that would ever be needed is "check NRE".

As I said, the ticket should have been accepted if the OP showed the route was valid on NRE. But they haven't said that they did so.

 

[sheff1]

I agree it would be nice, but when you have a train full of passengers to get through and only a few minutes between stops, the niceties sometimes get lost.

If the RPI has time to issue a PF, they have time to do a very simple search on NRE.

If they do not have the equipment (e.g. smartphone) to do a NRE search that should not mean the passenger is incorrectly PF'd.

As I said, the ticket should have been accepted if the OP showed the route was valid on NRE. But they haven't said that they did so.

They mentioned the Trainline - an approved ticket retailer. That should prompt the RPI to do an NRE search as it introduces the uncertainty mentioned in the Routeing Guide. If they didn't do the search, they have not applied the Routeing Guide correctly, no matter how many times you slightly change your argument or introduce irrelevancies such as 'fare experts' who have no official status whatsoever.

 

[miami]

I see the justifiable anger at the tailway industry yet again charging someone when they shouldn't do, the railway industry yet again assuming guilt, the lack of training (at best)

However this is fairly irelevant to the OP. The options are

1) pay up for a quiet life. Just accept that the railway takes money from you with the threat but no legal force
2) fight it, costing many many hours of time at the least, with no hope of appropriate compensation for the value of that time
3) appeal, beg and plead to have the fate rescinded, make note of the last day you can pay the penalty and not pay until then, hopefully they will cancel it. Hope the railway doesn't attempt to take you to court, which while you should win will again be lots of time and stress

The most logical action would be to roll over and pay the money that has been extorted. Then write a pleading letter to see if you can have your money back. I'd also bring it up with the local MP as I'm sure this isn't the first time the railway has made money off charging on this route.


And yes extorted seems the right word - "obtain by force, threats, or other unfair means"

 

[bb21]

Not sure I follow. Why could a negative easement not be used to solve it?

I don't mean that. I meant not giving them ideas. Never mind.

I know it's obvious but some pricing managers do not appear too "on the ball".