Travelling Short on Megatrain

Discussion in 'Fares Advice & Policy' started by WillPS, 7 Dec 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 90019

    90019 Established Member

    Messages:
    6,602
    Joined:
    29 May 2008
    Location:
    Edinburgh/Leeds
    Also, when people put up signs saying they take no responsibility for damage or loss of items left, they still have a duty of care and are still responsible for anything that happens.
     
  2. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    24,164
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    No, that's something reserved only for FCC RPIs apparently. :D
     
  3. Failed Unit

    Failed Unit Established Member

    Messages:
    7,171
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2009
    Location:
    Central Belt
    Am I missing your point here, are you saying that if someone has a ticket from Sheffield - Norwich and also a ticket from Norwich - Thetford they should travel all the way to Norwich and they double back to Thetford wasting over an hour in the process otherwise they are evading the fare? I don't think even the most jobs worth RPI would enforce this one. Just imagine if the press got hold of it! As Yorkie says that is like a supermarket convicting you for shoplifting if you take a buy 3 get the 4th free and don't consume the 4th beer because it is cheaper than buying 2 beers alone!

    If that is the case I would quite happily go to court over this one. I know it is a different issue but I will often buy advance tickets from Market Rasen but board a Lincoln to avoid excessive connections. Why? so that the TOC's see there is demand for the journey and may do something to try and reduce the connection time rather and see people want to use Market Rasen. I have also bought Haymarket - London tickets as they are cheaper than Waverley - London tickets (AP again). Most of the staff don't really care (but can't prove you haven't got on a the correct point anyway).

    I am interest old timer, what do you think of people that split tickets to save money? ie travel from Peterborough - Birmingham by buying 2x Cheap Day returns to say Leicester. This was something that passenger focus advised doing when CT withdrew the direct CDR.

    For the record I would be happy to be taken to court on the OP example as the have valid tickets for the whole journey they are making, the fact they didn't travel to Norwich is none of the TOC's business, does this mean that if a buy a CDR from A-B if I don't use my return portion I should be up for fare dodging as well? If I was in fact doing the OP's journey, would buy a Ely - Thetford single. If an RPI was at Thetford they would get this and have no knowledge of my megatrain fare. The gaurd wouldn't physically hold me on the train in exactly the same way a mega-bus driver wouldn't prevent me leaving the bus early. In both cases niether would remember exactly what ticket ever passenger had when they checked them anyway. It may not even be the same gaurd as what check the ticket anyway if the crew changed, not all gaurds check everyticket
     
    Last edited: 12 Dec 2009
  4. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    24,164
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    An RPI has enough to worry about as it, without wanting to get involved with something so obviously stupid as what is being suggested - and they can't hold someone on a train unless they want to be charged with unlawful imprisonment (or whatever the specific charge is).

    Getting off early saves room for other passengers, so is beneficial to the railway. If someone is doing this regularly and highlighting some sort of error (call it 'loophole' if you must) in the ticketing system to make it financially worthwhile, the railway should be working to organise its pricing better.

    Nobody should be having to split and combine tickets to get a cheaper deal to go the same distance as a normal ticket. All of these things highlight the nonsensical pricing (okay, it DOES make sense in principle but there are too many variables and so it ends up not working as designed).

    If someone ever goes take this to court, let me know - I want to be there to watch. I won't hold my breath. No TOC would ever take something to court that they know would most likely fail.
     
  5. Old Timer

    Old Timer Established Member

    Messages:
    3,704
    Joined:
    24 Aug 2009
    Location:
    On a plane somewhere at 35,000
    The matter is quite clear and simple. The condition of issue of the ticket is quite clear it is valid ONLY for the journet to Norwich. It is NOT valid to any other point, and quite clearly states this in the terms of use. To use it to any other point is to invalidate the ticket. You enter into a clear legal agreement that you will comply with the conditions of issue when you buy the ticket.

    You could try challenging THAT in Court but be assured that you WOULD lose. It is not an unfair term, it is a condition that you freely enter into and thus accept the terms when you do so. There is no compunction to buy that ticket at that price because there are various other ticket types available to you. If you want to travel for minimal cost then you accept the terms and conditions that come with them.

    I do wish people would stop partially comparing supermarket purchases. When you buy something the legal context is completely altered because ownership passes to you. With a railway ticket you have nothing to transfer in that sense, and there are mutal obligations betwen you and the Railway whilst you are travelling that simply do not exist in the shop scenario.

    In the shop scenario, you have bought the items, therefore what you do with them is up to you.

    The closest scenario to compare is the period leading up to the sale.

    Until the journey is completed, there is still a legal obligation between the Railway and the passenger, because the Railway has to deliver the passenger to the stated destination. Upon fulfilling that obligation the Railway hyas then discharged its legal obligation and the Copntract between the parties has been satisfied (a legal term). Until the Contract is staisfied then both parties are mutually bound by the terms. That is why there are Conditions of Carriage.

    In the case of the Norwich ticket, the passenger is bound by the Contract, which is the journey to Norwich, which they have Contractually accepted as being invalid to any other destination.

    The reverse scenario would be for the Railway to terminate short and then say, "tough we never planned to go to Norwich anyway in order to save money".

    It is of absolutely NO concern to the Railway where the passenger lives, or how they chose to get there. Why should it be ?

    The correct action is for the passenger to buy a ticket to Thetford which is there actual journey, or to comply with their Contractual obligations and travel as agreed via Norwich if they want to benefit from a very much reduced fare.

    If the Railway had intended that reduced fare to be available to Thetford, then they would have done. Instead they have very clearly and specifically PROHIBITED the ticket being used to a different destination.

    A railway ticket is a Contract which imposes mutual obligations on both parties until the journey is completed. I am sure that those who shout loudest about "customer service" and the right to ignore agreed terms and conditions would be the first to scream from the roof tops if the Railway decided unilaterally that IT would ignore their part of the bargain.

    The comparison with the split tickets is invalid, as the correct fare is being paid, albeit in stages theoretically.

    The fact that the train MUST stop at the relevant stations is a pretty big give away that the Railway will not permit travelling on a limited stop train, and is thus protecting its revenue.

    Previously split tickets on trains that did not stop was not allowed and the passenger excessed.

    The correct course of action should ATOC wish to do so is to prohibit starting or terminating short on reduced fares, thus removing the anomally.

    That course of action would affect no-one, other than those who were trying to avoid the correct fare for the actual journey, and would not be "anti-customer". Unless of course the attitude is that Conditions of Carriage do not apply and that it is legitimate for passengers to act in an underhand and dishonest manner.
     
    Last edited: 12 Dec 2009
  6. WillPS

    WillPS Established Member

    Messages:
    2,342
    Joined:
    18 Nov 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    I think that's a bizarre, anti-customer interpretation of the rules which wouldn't stand up in court on the grounds that it's completely unfair.
     
  7. Failed Unit

    Failed Unit Established Member

    Messages:
    7,171
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2009
    Location:
    Central Belt
    I agree, luckily old timer isn't running the railways and most RPI would use some common sense. In the you case the buying the Ely - Thetford ticket would infact keep the RPI happy. It may keep EMT happy as you have stated yourself someone else gets a seat between Thetford and Norwich and standing passengers are not happy ones.

    The whole cheap fair thing does work the detrimate of passengers at smaller stations such as Market Rasen and Thetford which could ultimately result in their closure. You can get a whole hose of cheap fares from Barnetby - Manchester, none from Market Rasen. What happens people drive to Barnetby as if you travel from Market Rasen you are no covered should you fail to make the connection, even if it 20 minutes for example.

    Morally would I travel without a ticket - no, would I level a bus / train or whatever early to save money - yes and I would sleep very soundly. I would buy the shortest ticket possible to open the barrier. TOC's as a rule screw over passengers so if some get thier own back it redresses the balance. I wonder how many people are now buying 2x AP tickets which cost more than returns online, it is very easy to do. Or maybe buy an anytime ticket when an off-peak would do as they are not sure of the retrictions. I know people travelling between Leeds and Edinburgh that buy an anytime not realising the off-peak is valid all day...
     
  8. Old Timer

    Old Timer Established Member

    Messages:
    3,704
    Joined:
    24 Aug 2009
    Location:
    On a plane somewhere at 35,000
    Your opinion not fact.

    Are you suggesting that the conditions of issue are irrelevant then ?

    Can they and the NCoC be totally ignored ?

    Why HAVE restrictions if the first response is for everyone to claim they are not applicable and" anti-customer"

    The issue is not whether the TOC would take action, the discussion is whether the ticket is valid. It is not.

    What part of the conditions of issue by Megatrain do you have a problem understanding ?

    There are many on here who feel the Law is a reflection of their opinions. It is not.
     
  9. Failed Unit

    Failed Unit Established Member

    Messages:
    7,171
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2009
    Location:
    Central Belt
    If they are easy to get around as they are in this case the yes.
    Old Timer - I will not dispute the fact that stopping short is against the terms and conditions of the contract, neither of us can say if it is illegal or not as it has not been tested in court. Unless Stagecoach start chaining people to the train their terms and conditions for getting off short can't be enforced.

    As I have stated in this example, you have a ticket to Norwich, you show this to the gaurd he is happy. You have also bought a ticket from Ely - Thetford. You get off the train at Thetford, it is not upto the gaurd to challenge you, his / her duties are with the train not revenue protection which are only a part of thier job once the train is covered. You get stopped by an RPI, you hand them the Ely - Thetford ticket, they have no reason to believe you didn't board the train at Ely and let you passed as you have given them a valid ticket for a journey that the train has just come from. (Handing the a ticket from Norwich in this case may raise their alarm bells, but there is nothing from stopping you hanging around until a train from Norwich shows up)

    Going the other way you probably could get caught out. (ie starting late) In this case you buy your ticket from Thetford - Norwich and you have a Norwich - Liverpool Mega train ticket. You board at Thetford, you tell the gaurd that didn't want to waste 2 hours going to Norwich. I do not know a gaurd on EMT that would even think about excessing / invalidating the megatrain ticket. It is their call and there is no-one need as you have valid tickets so no-one has lost out - all the EMT gaurds I know are reasonable people. But lets say one did make an issue, you give you name and address and have your day in court. Lets say you lose, it is a present to the media who have yet another rip off Britian story. I really don't think EMT would press charges as the bad press they would get would not be worth amount they would recover.

    In this example EMT may not have as much revenue as they would have done if they had bought the super-off peak or whatever, but they still have more than if the passener had stayed on to Norwich and then got someone to pick them up at Norwich by car.

    The terms and conditions are there for a reason, but as the travelling short one is unenforceable also equally pointless.
     
  10. Old Timer

    Old Timer Established Member

    Messages:
    3,704
    Joined:
    24 Aug 2009
    Location:
    On a plane somewhere at 35,000
    Travelling short is NOT unenforceable when the ticket was purchased with the exclusion.

    The media ? Try the person trieds to defraud the Railway angle, which is what it is.

    Yet again I try to point out that if there is a loss of revenue then it is actionable.
     
  11. Failed Unit

    Failed Unit Established Member

    Messages:
    7,171
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2009
    Location:
    Central Belt
    Exactly how would you enforce it? You have to catch the person doing it first which would cost more than the revenue they would gain in this case as you would need a RPI to baby sit the passenger just in case they get off early. The only way is to physically chain the person to the seat until they get to thier destination. Something that is definately illegal!

    I don't have any sympathy with the railway here, considering the length they go to rip off customers themselves.

    The original poster is not trying to defraud the railway, they have got tickets between Norwich and Thetford, they are just trying to save themselves time. Even the Sun would see through that arguement. They have the right tickets for the journey they intend to make. If they didn't have the Norwich - Thetford tickets your arguement may have logic, but it doesn't in this case.

    We will agree to disagree on this one, but I will keep my catch me if you can attitude on this one.

    Can you seriously expect an EMT gaurd to care that much to enforce it, they have more important things to worry about such as the train. You could argue that the gaurd could get into trouble with senior management arguement but again how would the management ever know? The gaurd isn't going to say anything and the person who the gaurd has helped out isn't. I guess EMT could do a sting by getting a manager to "try it on" but image the RMT's reaction should any gaurd be disapplined for showing some disgression and common sense.

    I can't agree any revenue has been lost. The OP has got tickets between Norwich and Thetford, they have just not sat on the trains. How exactly would the railway have more revenue if the person sat on the train to Norwich, then double back again on the next train just to get the tickets they already have gripped! They may even double back on the exact same train they came in on, the gaurd would probably think that they are insane for doing such a thing! Any gaurd I know would certainly ask why didn't you get off at Thetford, if I replied to comply with the T&C's of the megatrain ticket they would just laugh at me. Are you saying that doubling back should be illegal even if you have the correct tickets to do it? I am sure if you asked the gaurd without the Norwich - Thetford ticket if you could get off early they would just say "I won't say anything if you don't" or "I can't physically stop you". Although I am not a judge, I can't see why a court would waste time on this.
     
    Last edited: 12 Dec 2009
  12. DaveNewcastle

    DaveNewcastle Established Member Fares Advisor

    Messages:
    7,397
    Joined:
    21 Dec 2007
    Location:
    Newcastle (unless I'm out)
    But sadly, the Courts are NOT the place to discuss fairness - that's a matter for the press and for debate in the pubs, chatrooms and elsewhere. We have Courts in order to deliver Justice, and they do this by applying the evidence before them to the legislation passed by governments.
    There does seem to be a misconception on here that Courts are concerned with what is Fair and what is not.
    No. They are actually concerned with what is Just and what is not.
    I can assure you that if any Court delivered a verdict on the basis of fairness, then the loosing party would be advised to seek a Judicial Review to challenge that decision.

    I can only guess that this misconception has been fuelled by too many films which rejoice when a Court delivers a fair verdict - in reality, they frequently don't.

    The Courts are regularly expected to "waste" time on listening to Prosecution arguments which have little prospect of success. This waste of time is very largely the result of people persisting in taking their claim to Court because they are conviced that a Judge will look kindly on them and will be fair. One hour of advice from a solicitor would have told them that they would not win.
    In fact, a Court is not (normally) permitted to refuse to hear a case because they think it will waste time. That would contradict the citizen's right to receive Justice. The consequence of this is the massive amount of professional time wasted on hearing cases that have a negligible prospect of success.

    I'm sorry if this isn't what you want to read - but I do spend time in Courts, and I have to tell you - a lot of it is time wasted!
     
    Last edited: 12 Dec 2009
  13. WillPS

    WillPS Established Member

    Messages:
    2,342
    Joined:
    18 Nov 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Yes - a contract is not absolute, the word of the law is! If you write a contract with terms that are illegal, the contract is null and void.
    Not ignored, no, but see above.

    No it isn't! I've said this a number of times now - read my first post. I acknowledged the rule and challenged how it could possibly be enforced in this example. The answer is, it cannot without a revenue protection presence, which Thetford station seemingly has not had at least in my lifetime!

    See above. I'm not going to answer or acknowledge any further posts which say it's against the rules. I bloody well know it's against the rules, hence this thread.

    And then there are those who know something about the law and know that there are various bits of law in place to protect customers from being stung by ridiculous contracts/terms & conditions. Not least this bit.

    But there are various laws in place which do ensure fair trading???

    So go on then, how could you enforce it. Well okay, lets say you've got a Revenue Protection presence at every station which any train sold under the megatrain scheme calls at, which is completely unrealistic before we've even started.

    But anyway - you have that, and then I get on a Liverpool bound train with a £1 Megatrain ticket to Sheffield, and also a single Peterborough to Grantham. I then get off in Grantham, and put my Peterborough to Grantham ticket in the barrier. How, pray tell, are you to prevent that?

    The loss in revenue is sanctioned by Stagecoach, who are releasing discount tickets. By relieving the train early I still do not feel that I have defrauded them.
     
    Last edited: 12 Dec 2009
  14. DaveNewcastle

    DaveNewcastle Established Member Fares Advisor

    Messages:
    7,397
    Joined:
    21 Dec 2007
    Location:
    Newcastle (unless I'm out)
    As stated above, a rail ticket is a token of a contract which binds a traveller and a rail operator. With such a range of tickets routes and operators available, the traveller has choices, which would make it tricky to identify any unfair terms in the contract. I'm not persuaded there are any.
    Note. I am not offering an opinion on the matter in hand, just cautioning against a reliance on an expectation of "fairness" in law.
     
  15. Old Timer

    Old Timer Established Member

    Messages:
    3,704
    Joined:
    24 Aug 2009
    Location:
    On a plane somewhere at 35,000
    On what basis is the Contract illegal than ? And if it is illegal then you are also guilty in Law of making an Illegal Contract, so think that through, eh ?

    Your questions was to check how likely it would be that you would be caught. You did this because you know in your own mind that what you propose is wrong both on the basis of the terms under which the ticket is issued as well as morally. I wonder if you would be so incensed if Megatrain inilaterally decided to terminate short and tell you to make your own way ?


    If YOU knew a litttle more about the Law you would have established that the terms and conditions are neither ridiculous nor unfair. What is ridiculous and unfair about a condition inmposed upon someone travelling to Norwich requiring them NOT to break journey ? Why should they need to stop short unless of course they were trying to benefit from a cheap ticket to gain financial advantage......Oh isn't this what it is all about actually ?

    As for fair trading, I am sure they will be delighted to confirm that the matter is not in breach.

    Do yourself a favour and take a walk down to your local legal advice bureau. Put the WHOLE circumstances to them, espacially the bit about you wanting to break the conditions of the issue of the ticket, and then come back on here and tell us your response. You might also care to ask them if they would be prepared to represent you in the event you were caught and see what they say to that.

    Whilst you are there you may also care to ask them if they think the matter is in contravention of the Consumer Protection Act - It isn't but don't take my word, I only deal with Contract management and Contract Law on a regular basis so what do I know ?

    Do Stagecoach get the revenue for a ticket to Thetford ?

    No they would not. The loss is to the TOC that would get the revenue. Anyway THAT is irrelevant in terms of the NCoC, as they do NOT stipulate evasion against any particular TOC.



    The WHOLE reason the person intends to use the Megatrain fare is because it is only £11 from wherever they board the train to Norwich.

    But, again as I keep saying they don't actually WANT to travel to Norwich. They want to see how they can get off at Thetford without penalty.

    This should surely ring the little bell that tells you there has to be a loss of revenue otherwise why does the person firstly buy a ticket to Norwich and then seek to work out if they could get off at Thetford without being caught.

    If there was no loss of revenue why not buy a ticket to Thetford in the first place ? The answer is self evident.
     
    Last edited: 12 Dec 2009
  16. nedchester

    nedchester Established Member

    Messages:
    1,093
    Joined:
    28 May 2008
    At the end of the day. Against the law or not it isn't the 'crime of the century' is it?

    Bit like nicking a pencil from work. Yes it's theft but not a major theft,

    (awaits "paragon of virtue" type comment!)
     
  17. yorkie

    yorkie Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    44,529
    Joined:
    6 Jun 2005
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    I suspect it is not lawful because it is only enforceable if the passenger is effectively imprisoned in the train!

    Also, it is WITHIN the normal terms that ALLOW a customer to cut short. It is only a small print term of this particular ticket where that is not allowed. If a term is generally allowed but only disallowed due to small print, then that is surely a civil contractual matter and not a criminal matter?

    The reason given for this variation of the normal contract is to "keep it simple", they do not claim it is to protect revenue. So what would they argue in court? That a customer "made it complicated"?

    If a passenger felt unwell during the journey, I'd love to see Megatrain try to imprison them. There'd be hell to pay!
    I don't see how it is a crime at all. The correct fare has been paid. A customer is merely exercising a right that is normally available in the NCoC.
    Not even that. It's not a theft, there is no revenue lost to the company. It's more like work giving you 2 pencils free and you only take one of them and they say "no, you must accept 2 - it's in your contract!"

    Next up: Replacement taxis are only meant to take you to the station. When Metcam, a randomer and I got a taxi back in 2005, the taxi driver did not go all the way to York station but cut "short". I guess we're all going to be prosecuted for that are we, for saving the rail industry money by not double-backing?! If not, why not, OT?
     
  18. Old Timer

    Old Timer Established Member

    Messages:
    3,704
    Joined:
    24 Aug 2009
    Location:
    On a plane somewhere at 35,000
    That is a totally silly observation to make. Why would one have to imprison a passenger who was doing their lawful journey to Norwich ? The situation only arises because someone wants to break the conditions upon which the ticket was issued in good faith by Megatrain, and conditions which were so obviously known to the purchaser, hence the query on here.


    But this is NOT a normal ticket. It is a ticket sold with an express condition that it may NOT be used to travel to any other destination. Therefore the Condition becomes binding uner the NCoC, even you (I think) have accepted that.


    I would refer you to Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416.

    Whilst ordinarily breach of Contract is remedied under Civil Law, travelling on the Railway has been specifically legislated into Criminal Law.... Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

    This was done because it would have been completely impossible for the legal system to have dealt with every individual case as a civil matter.

    The normal prosecution is still made under Section 5 of this Act.

    This is just one of a number of areas where Railway travel and ticketing are outwith of certain Legislation that people are very fond of quoting.


    The reasononing is irrelevant in Law. The passenger is not forced to buy the ticket. If they elect to buy the ticket then the accept the legal obligations that this conveys, as per the NCoC. If thye are not happy then they can request a refund. Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co [1930] 1 KB 41, 47


    Refer to my first answer. This issue is irrelevant when the ticket is being used for its actual true purpose

    No there is NO right to terminate short, indeed the ticket is issued with that restriction. You yourself have many times on this site pointed out to people that a break of journey is not permitted. Terminating short is effectively a break of journey and is not permitted. In purchasing the ticket the passenger agrees to this condition. NCoC makes clear the excess arrangements with regards to break of journey.


    A completely stupid analogy but not surprising looking at the source of it. There is no comparison between buying something in a shop and rail travel. Nothing at all. A little research will quickly prove this to be the case.


    There is no revenue lost to STAGECOACH but there is to EMT who would have benefitted from the revenue had the correct fare been paid. Do the fare comparison yourself. As I previously pointed out in an earlier post, there has to be a loss of revenue otherwise the OP would not have made the query but would simply have bought a ticket to Thetford.


    Why did he cut short ? However the fact of the matter again is that in this case there has been no loss of revenue. How could there be. You had (presumably) held a ticket to York and therefore the TOC had received the revenue.

    As an aside however, had the taxi been in an accident then the Driver would have been acting outside HIS contract with the TOC, and this may well have invalidated his insurance and thus your ability to claim damages had you been injured.
     
  19. Lampshade

    Lampshade Established Member

    Messages:
    3,565
    Joined:
    3 Sep 2009
    Location:
    South London
    If it's 'illegal' to travel short, what's the penalty for buying the ticket but not travelling at all, execution?

    It seems any misdemeanour, no matter how small, in the rail industry is the crime of the century :???:
     
  20. 90019

    90019 Established Member

    Messages:
    6,602
    Joined:
    29 May 2008
    Location:
    Edinburgh/Leeds
    If you don't travel, you don't use the ticket at all, which is different from misusing it.
     
  21. Old Timer

    Old Timer Established Member

    Messages:
    3,704
    Joined:
    24 Aug 2009
    Location:
    On a plane somewhere at 35,000
    The "penalty" is the requirement to pay the difference between the fare actually paid and the correct fare.

    Evading the fare for your journey is no different to stealing from a shop. Do you object to this ?

    Fare evasion costs £millions each year, which is reflected in the amount of subsidy that is being paid by the taxpayer, so ultimately every taxpayer and passenger pays the price of those who evade the correct fare or evade total payment.

    It is NOT the victimless crime that some would have you believe, and as I said on another topic, it ill behoves a railway forum of so called pro-railway enthusiasts to give out advice on how payment of the correct fare for the journey being undertaken may be evaded, irrespective of how some seek to disguise this fact by suggestions of altruism.

    Fare evasion was considered to be such an anti-social issue that the Victorians enacted it into Criminal Law, which is still in use today.
     
  22. Helvellyn

    Helvellyn Established Member

    Messages:
    1,319
    Joined:
    28 Aug 2009
    This is not a normal ticket. It is only available from megatrain.com, a subsiduary of the Stagecoach Group. I've already stated that this revenue goes directly to Stagecoach, not to EMT or SWT. They are just providing the mode of transport, but the passenger is making their booking with megatrain.com for travel from A to B.

    Now the OP has stated they have bought a ticket from B back to C, and intend to get off at C without travelling to B. So they are breaking the conditions of their megatrain.com ticket. I would state though that most Revenue staff would allow the passenger through by presenting the ticket from B to C. Yet the fact remains that the A to B ticket conditions have been broken.

    On the return, if the passenger has a megatrain.com ticket from B to A, and just boards at C, they should expect to be charged for an Anytime Single from C to A. Again, if they have a ticket from C to B they wish to present, they may be let off. But on departure from the origin station most Guards/Revenue check the megatrain loading sheets to see which passengers are on board. Someone who then boards later on can be proved not to have been on the train at the origin station.


    The point remains that megatrain is not a normal AP ticket. It is not covered by the same guarantess that an AP or other ticket is. If you are getting a connection to a station to change onto a megatrain service, and that connection is late, you will not have the megatrain ticket honoured on another service. It is a simple A to B ticket on the specified train, on the specified date. Nothing more, nothing less. That is a simple and basic set of conditions, yet I've seen many people who seem to think they can change them to suit their own requirements.

    Too many passengers - and even staff - seem to think discretion means allowing T&Cs to be broken because there are seats available, etc. Yet discretion by its very nature should be something exceptional to accepted requirements. It's the lack of consistency that frustrates passengers as much as anything. Many times I've heard the phrase, "but I was allowed to do it yesterday/last week/last time I travelled" bandied about. Unfortunately trying to apply that consistency often sees the staff member called a jobsworth or wosre!
     
  23. Lampshade

    Lampshade Established Member

    Messages:
    3,565
    Joined:
    3 Sep 2009
    Location:
    South London
    Of course I object to that, unless you're suggesting that I'd condone what is essentially theft :shock:
     
  24. Old Timer

    Old Timer Established Member

    Messages:
    3,704
    Joined:
    24 Aug 2009
    Location:
    On a plane somewhere at 35,000
    I didn't suggest but merely put the two matters in context. There is no difference between theft from a shop and fare evasion.

    Your post talked about "a crime of the Century" but much to do with Railways is dealt with under Criminal Law rather than Civil Law which is the case in retail purchases.
     
  25. Failed Unit

    Failed Unit Established Member

    Messages:
    7,171
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2009
    Location:
    Central Belt
    Because EMT can't be bothered to provide what, but I ask yet again how can you enforce the stopping short anyway without physically chaining someone to the seat? The T&C's are broken I agree, but you will never be convicted of fare evasion because you can never prove the person has done it in court!
     
  26. Old Timer

    Old Timer Established Member

    Messages:
    3,704
    Joined:
    24 Aug 2009
    Location:
    On a plane somewhere at 35,000
    I disagree that EMT cannot be bothered. They have a range of fares.

    Megatrain have decided to develop a traffic flow to Norwich, not Thetford.

    Whilst one obviously cannot physically stop anyone from doing anything, the NCoC illustrate how a passenger arriving at a station from a train without a valid ticket for the journey.

    The NCoC clearly state that in some cases the passenger will be treated as not holding a valid ticket. This would be one of them because the ticket is only valid for the whole journey, as the conditions of issue clearly specify.

    Demonstrating fare evasion in Court is one of the simplest parts, although this would not be necessary unless the person refused to pay the excess.

    Person arrives at B with a ticket that is valid only from A to C. Break of journey or terminating/starting short is not permitted. Ticket (on my understanding of the latest rules) is thus invalid.

    Excess is Std fare (again subject to my understanding being correct) for the journey actually undertaken which is from A to B.

    How an RPI would deal with the matter is also quite simple, and would be based upon their initial questioning.

    If they believe it to be a simple case of someone deciding to leave the train early, having started the journey then they can elect to issue the excess and matters are finalised.

    If, however, they suspect that the ticket was purchased with the INTENT of travelling only to Thetford, then that as far as the Law is concerned Prima Facie evidence of a deliberate attempt to avoid the correct fare, and as such the relevant part fo the ticket is withdrawn, a free excess issued, and the passenger reported for irregular travelling.

    A refusal to pay is contrary to the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 section (5)(2), however because the Act does not deal with short travelling, the relevant action would be under the Theft Act 1978 Section 1 (as amended by the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996).

    This states:
    (1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence.

    It is this Act under which falsification and alteration of tickets is dealt with, as well as premeditated fare evasion which is not covered under Section (5)(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

    Before someone jumps in with any argument about the Section 5 wording, it is based upon the fact that railway fares were previously regulated by faes based upon distance, and thus stopping/starting short was not an issue as the further ticket was never cheaper. Indeed a person terminating short, could and did have a refund given for the unused portion of the journey either the outward or return or both parts as appropriate.

    From the 1970s the method of fare charging was altered to become "selective pricing". This allowed BR to modify the base fares to reflect market demand.

    This applied however only to single and return tickets.

    It did not apply to season tickets which were still based upon a mileage rate.

    There were very few cases indeed where a ticket from a station further out was cheaper because selective pricing was more targetted at Inter City fares. I do recall however someone presenting a ticket from C to A although they had actually travelled from B to A. What they did not know was that the train had not called at C, and thus they could not have undertaken that journey. They were reported for deliberate fare evasion.
     
    Last edited: 13 Dec 2009
  27. nedchester

    nedchester Established Member

    Messages:
    1,093
    Joined:
    28 May 2008
    Old Timer - you seem to be a lone voice here as regards starting short being 'illegal' ) as in the other thread. Starting short is permitted in the NCoC.
     
  28. Old Timer

    Old Timer Established Member

    Messages:
    3,704
    Joined:
    24 Aug 2009
    Location:
    On a plane somewhere at 35,000
    Firstly I am not a lone voice, as others have recognised the point. Not least Helvellyn who is a professional with the Revenue Protection area and confirmed just a few posts back that the ticket was not valid for travel to Thetford.

    Even, in fairness, so does the OP recognise it is not valid.

    The NCoC states quite clearly that there may be restrictions on the use of tickets both to particular trains or operators.

    Starting / terminating short is NOT an issue where the ticket allows it, but how on earth anyone can sustain a reasonable argument that a ticket which is very clearly issued from A to C ONLY can be valid at B is beyond me. In that case it would be argued that a ticket prohibiting a break of journey must also be disallowed. That is the point that the various people on here have not considered, and which automatically makes their argument invalid. They state elsewhere that a ticket prohibiting a break of journey is quite valid and you should not break your journey or you will be penalised. They then however argue that a ticket that expressly forbids being used other than to the destination it was bought to is anti-customer, contrary to "Consumer Laws/Fair Trading" etc, and that because it is "unfair" it must be valid at an intermediate station. Their whole argument is mutually incompatible, taking one example with the other.

    That is the debate NOT whether starting/terminating short is permitted. It is PROVIDED the ticket allows it. If the ticket does NOT allow it than there are specific excess rules to deal with it.

    One of the debates developed was the excess fare. This would be the difference between the correct applicablle fare for the journey and that which was paid.

    The OP has suggested that they will double back from Norwich. That is fine.

    If however they alight at Thetford, then legally the ticket from origin to Thetford is invalid.

    The fact they have a Norwich to Thetford is irrelevant because that is not the journey they are making.

    I believe in the circumstancers that the excess would then be from point of origin to Thetford because that is the fare that should have been paid for because that is the journey being made in this case. Helvellyn I am sure will say whether or not this interpretation is correct.

    Tickets which are much cheaper than those to intermediate destinations can never be valid to travel to those destinations because otherwise everyone would buy them and then there would be no tickets sold to the intermediate stations, thus leading to a loss of revenue.

    People should not confuse ticket and fare paid, which most on here seem to.

    A ticket is valid only for the journey to which it applies, and in accordance with the terms and conditions under which it was issued. If you have any doubt that the ticket may be used "short" then go visit the site and see what Conditions of Issue are displayed.

    Arguments about "fairness" and references to various Consumer Acts, most of which are irrelevant are simply based upon an emotion argument that seems to have at the heart of it, that TOCs sharge too much for tickets. Well full fare tickets are regulated by Government and TOCs are subsidised by the taxpayer to provide the service.

    Such views are for Political debate and not the basis for providing illustrations as to how people can avoid the correct fare

    There is nothing wrong with identifying the cheapest means of travelling from A to C provided that it is in accordance with the NCoC and is not a means at fare evasion.

    There is long established history in fare evasion Prosecutions to demonstrate that failing to pay the correct fare for the journey is an illegal act. The fact that there may well be no reveue protection staff at Thetford do not legalise or reduce this fact, in the same way that it is illegal to speed in your car which can be done without another party being present, but which is an absolute crime, i. e. the fact demonstrates the act and thus is why the Police can deal with it without the need to argue over whether it was speeding or not (for example). Once they can demonstrate that you have been speeding then the only issue is the penalty. Railway fare evasion is the same.

    Theft from a supermarket for example is difference because of the need to demonstrate intent in order to take a case forward. Intent in the Railway sense can be proven once the journey commences without a ticket or from the time that the ticket validity is exceeded or broken.

    This is why section 5 is worded as it is.

    The railway ticket is governed quite differently to other purchases because there is no transfer or ownership of goods, and both the Railway and the Passenger have a mutual obligation to one another whilst the journey is being undertaken.


    I think a greater illustration is the moral values that have been demonstrated on here, some of which I find somewhat poor. Howeve rmorals are a personal attitude and I do not wish to enage in a debate on those !
     
  29. Failed Unit

    Failed Unit Established Member

    Messages:
    7,171
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2009
    Location:
    Central Belt
    The whole AP discriminates against rural services as it encourages people to drive to the larger stations but that is a different debate.
    Lets stop this right here, you have a mega train ticket from Sheffield - London, you get off at Luton. You know this is against the T&C's so you buy a ticket from Luton Airport Parkway - Luton. You hand the Luton Airport Parkway - Luton ticket the to RPI. They are happy that you have a valid ticket for a journey that station and let you pass. In reality you use the barrier anyway so knowbody ever knows.

    You can travel from Edinburgh - Glasgow with tickets from Edinburgh - Haymarket and Charing Cross - Glasgow for the sake of passing through the barriers, however if you are questioned on the train you are up the creak without a paddle. In the example of Sheffield - London Megatrain you are OK on the train as you have ticket for your entire journey, you are OK on the station as you have a ticket for a journey that is possible for that station. (Luton Airport - Luton) Hence why megatrain tickets short stopping T&C's are unenforceable, without illegally using force to keep you in your seat until you arrive at your destination.

    Finally what I am suggesting is against the T&C, but is it illegal? Well if you can find a case where someone has been convicted yes, if not who knows. You could have a T&C for megatrain stating you must travel naked. It doesn't mean the can press charges should you not comply to it as Ryanair are often finding out when the court rules that thier T&C's are not enforceable.
     
  30. Old Timer

    Old Timer Established Member

    Messages:
    3,704
    Joined:
    24 Aug 2009
    Location:
    On a plane somewhere at 35,000
    So lets just throw out the NCoC and lets have a free for all shall we?

    Because that is the basis of your argument.

    Maybe we should ignore any other Laws you or others do not like ?

    Where shall we start ?

    I advised an earlier poster to go and seek a legal opinion. I suggest you do similar.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page