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.
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 !