Virgin rail 'bullies'

[sheff1]

I could jump on a GC train to London tomorrow having had the opportunity to pay on line or at the station but declined to do so and be issued a ticket without any problem. On another part of the system I could do the same thing and be issued with a ticket or accused of fare evasion.

Say I was travelling to London from somewhere in SYorks. I use my Travelmaster to get to Sheffield or Doncaster.

* If I jumped on an EMT at Sheffield I could be charged a penalty fare.

* If I jumped on an EC train from Doncaster I would be charged the full Anytime Fare.

* If I boarded a GC or HT train at Doncaster I would be charged the cheapest fare available.

This lack of a consistent ticketing system must cause confusion. It is quite easy, if changing trains at Sheffield or Doncaster, not to have to pass any notices explaining Penalty Fares or On Board Ticketing arrangements.

 

[yorkie]

Surely rail travel and the legality surrounding it shouldn't be about tricky questions? I could catch that GC train tomorrow (if I could put up with this weekend's disruptions) for £25 return. A discounted, walk on, any time (or at least any time until the end of the month) ticket. Or I could ask for an any time return at the ticket office and be charged £239.00..

If you asked at a ticket office, I'd expect them to quote the (super) off peak fares, giving you the option of Any Permitted and GC, not the anytime fare and I would hope they would inform you that the tickets are the same price on board if you go with GC. I'd then expect someone to realise it's better not to buy in advance (e.g. if something crops up it will cost you £10 admin fee to get it refunded!), jump on board, ask for a ticket, and then get a nice surprise to learn it's only £25.

I put York station to the test once and asked what the fare was for the next train to London, (the next was a GC), they quoted the GC off peak fare and I asked if it was any cheaper to buy it from them than on board, they answered correctly that the fare was the same on board. I thanked them and reported back here (people had complained that NXEC had been giving misinformation. Well maybe they were elsewhere, but not at York!)

If you experience that impartial advice is not being given out on a specific occasion, then I suggest rather than having a bit of a rant in this forum (no offence but that's how it seems), posting the specific details in a new thread.

 

[colpepper]

In BR days it was a general, if not universal truism that the longer the journey the cheaper it was over a similar route, compared to local tickets. Since privatisation multiple shorter journeys can make it cheaper to buy separate tickets, yet there is no obvious mechanism for buying those tickets without a degree of expertise. Why should economical place to place rail travel require ticketing expertise beyond that offered by a salaried railway employee?

 

[yorkie]

Say I was travelling to London from somewhere in SYorks. I use my Travelmaster to get to Sheffield or Doncaster.

* If I jumped on an EMT at Sheffield I could be charged a penalty fare.

* If I jumped on an EC train from Doncaster I would be charged the full Anytime Fare.

* If I boarded a GC or HT train at Doncaster I would be charged the cheapest fare available.

This lack of a consistent ticketing system must cause confusion. It is quite easy, if changing trains at Sheffield or Doncaster, not to have to pass any notices explaining Penalty Fares or On Board Ticketing arrangements.

Depending on your origin station, and any conversation with the guard on your first train, and then depending on the route taken between your train and the EMT train, a PF may not be enforceable on EMT from Sheffield (obviously not applicable from Doncaster). Without a specific example I won't give a specific answer.

But yes, you have a valid point.

 

[colpepper]

If you experience that impartial advice is not being given out on a specific occasion, then I suggest rather than having a bit of a rant in this forum (no offence but that's how it seems), posting the specific details in a new thread.

I certainly am having a rant but accept it's associated rather than central to the OPs point.

 

[yorkie]

In BR days it was a general, if not universal truism that the longer the journey the cheaper it was over a similar route, compared to local tickets. Since privatisation multiple shorter journeys can make it cheaper to buy separate tickets, yet there is no obvious mechanism for buying those tickets without a degree of expertise. Why should economical place to place rail travel require ticketing expertise beyond that offered by a salaried railway employee?

While I agree with what you say up to a point, and I am no fan of privatisation, it was government decisions regarding funding and ticket policy that forced BR to abolish longer distance cheaper fares. What actually happened was that long distance CDRs became SSRs, and then SSRs were abolished. At simplification in some cases SVRs were renamed SSRs to reflect the greatly reduced validity, but of course at the higher SVR price. Then a new SVR introduced at a much higher price (in some cases by re-naming the BVR which had been introduced years earlier as a result of the severe restrictions to SVRs)

Had they done this in one go overnight it would probably have been illegal, and it would certainly have caused outrage. Both Conservative and Labour governments had policies that caused these changes.

Privatisation hasn't caused the problems you describe, but it has caused other problems such as the ballooning range of validity codes.

You seem to be diversifying this thread by the minute!

 

[colpepper]

You seem to be diversifying this thread by the minute!

That wasn't my intention. I perceived myself under simultaneous attack from those who considered ticketing child's play then gave evidence why it wasn't and from others arguing for wide ranging police-like powers to ascertain a traveller's guilt or innocence.

I'm happy to leave the thread in the certainty, to my own satisfaction at least, that train ticketing is too complex to assume anything for certain.

 

[yorkie]

Well, train ticketing is complex, I agree. But some of your solutions such as guards not showing discretion are unworkable and would not benefit passengers. As for wanting a 'simpler' system I would not wish for that unless there were some hefty safeguards in place; look what happened last time!

 

[RJ]

I will issue the cheapest and simplest ticket that you've requested. I'm under no obligation to offer split tickets unless I'm specifically asked for them.

As for revenue protection, we're paid to do a job. There's no personal satisfaction element in it for me and I don't get commission for issuing Penalty Fares.
I don't need to justify myself to anyone on here, more concerned with doing my job correctly and having the means to put food on the table. Doing my job correctly means dealing with ticketless travellers and fare evaders by the book. Those who have the choice of buying a ticket before boarding and choose not to accept that they will either have to pay for an Anytime Single, Penalty Fare or risk prosecution. No point in attacking the people who are employed to ensure that as many people as possible have paid for a valid ticket IMO.

 

[asylumxl]

No point in attacking the people who are employed to ensure that as many people as possible have paid for a valid ticket IMO.

I by no means dislike RPIs, and appreciate the need for them.

But I have encountered a small minority of RPIs from a two certain TOCs who are just misinformed, belligerent and rude. To be totally honest, they just make it up as they go along. And I am not alone, with many people having the same experiences.

These are the people who act hostile towards people, so it's no suprise they make people act hostile towards RPIs, rightly or wrongly so.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Why? I'm sorry if that sounds provocative but seriously, why can't I ask for the cheapest way of getting from A to B by train and not receive it?

To illustrate the point Mike_WH makes, imagine you are a clerk at Walkden station (Manchester). Day in, day out, you sell singles, returns and seasons to Manchester. Then one day, at around 0800hrs, a chap turns up and says "Cheapest possible return from St Ives to Thurso please, I don't care what time I travel, so long as it's next week sometime". You have five minutes from the time they joined the queue to sell the ticket. To check a train for available tickets takes a minimum of twenty seconds, what would you do? Be quick, the queue is getting longer!

In reality, Ticket Office Clerks must offer the cheapest through ticket for the journey being made, unless a specific ticket is requested. The passengers charter for each TOC says the vast majority of clerks have to try to make sure a passenger is served within five minutes (peak-time, varies by station) of joining the queue (so we don't even get the full five minutes to indentify what they need!).

There is no perfect system.

 

[RPI]

Only just found this thread, Yorkie says that the £270.00 is excessive, well looking through my avantix machine the only fare for 2 adult 1 child from COV to EUS that comes near that figure (£268.80) is for first class fares, so they bought heavilly discounted FC advance tickets and misused them, as there is no off-peak FC fare for the single journey then £268.80 was the cheapest available fare. I hope VT pursue this and will win if it goes to court, an easy Byelaw 18(2) as by the womans own admission they refused to hand over the tickets that they had, but also this is an easy 5.3(a) as they refused to pay the fare due at the time of travel and that the fare was due before travelling, an interesting case that is always corbyn v saunders (just google it), makes interesting reading!

Oh and before yorkie starts on about whether anyone has ever actually been done for a byelaw then just look at all of London Midlands "name and shame" prosecutions, the majority of which are byelaw 18(1) for people who refused to pay their PF's.
Not to mention the regulars at Maidenhead magistrates etc etc......

 

[Greenback]

In reality, Ticket Office Clerks must offer the cheapest through ticket for the journey being made, unless a specific ticket is requested. The passengers charter for each TOC says the vast majority of clerks have to try to make sure a passenger is served within five minutes (peak-time, varies by station) of joining the queue (so we don't even get the full five minutes to indentify what they need!).

There is no perfect system.

I am not disagreeing with you rwell mad epoint about the role of the clerk and the impossibility of knowing every ticket combination when it comes to split tickets, but I would say the definition of a customer being served is when the employee begins to deal with their request!

Since I last read this thread, there have been a lot of posts, so I may have missed some when skimming through what's been happening, but I'd like to make the point that there will always have to be some sort of element of discretion shown by guards. In fact, I'd say this goes for most front line customer facing jobs, both inside and outside the rail industry.

I think it was the use of the word 'scrotes' that colpepper did not like originally. It's sad to say, but not all members of society are perfect travellers, who respect the rights of others and always pay their fare. There are those in society who do deserve the term, and not just when it comes to travel either!

 

[SS4]

Oh and before yorkie starts on about whether anyone has ever actually been done for a byelaw then just look at all of London Midlands "name and shame" prosecutions, the majority of which are byelaw 18(1) for people who refused to pay their PF's.

I love those those posters and often check them to see if I recognise anybody's name on them

 

[yorkie]

Oh and before yorkie starts on about whether anyone has ever actually been done for a byelaw then just look at all of London Midlands "name and shame" prosecutions, the majority of which are byelaw 18(1) for people who refused to pay their PF's.

The DfT said that before PFs were introduced, the only way of deterring fare evaders was to prosecute under the 1889 act. Therefore, it is of no surprise to me that people are prosecuted under byelaw 18 when refusing to pay Penalty Fares. However if the TOCs are prosecuting people under byelaw 18 simply for boarding a train without a ticket without offering the customer the chance to pay for a ticket, with no evidence that the customer is evading the fare, then I would be quite surprised, and if this is occurring outside PF areas then I question the legality of it.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I am not disagreeing with you rwell mad epoint about the role of the clerk and the impossibility of knowing every ticket combination when it comes to split tickets, but I would say the definition of a customer being served is when the employee begins to deal with their request!....

I would agree with that definition, but the Passenger's Charter usually doesn't

Take Northern's Passenger Charter for example.....

"...When Purchasing a ticket for immediate travel we try to ensure you will not have to wait more than five minutes in busy periods and three minutes at all other times...."

Which is fine for serving Mr Long-distance, but not so good for Mr Commuter waiting behind him.

:roll:

 

[ralphchadkirk]

...byelaw 18 simply for boarding a train without a ticket without offering the customer the chance to pay for a ticket, with no evidence that the customer is evading the fare, then I would be quite surprised, and if this is occurring outside PF areas then I question the legality of it.

That would be illegal, because if you had read the byelaw then you would see it says this:

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
16
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

 

[Flamingo]

18 3 iii would seem to be the problem, though. Would the mysterious "man on the platform" who always seems to give permission for these things count as a "authorised person" or not?

 

[yorkie]

I don't know, but it would be up to a court to decide. Which is why TOCs are far less likely to go for prosecution unless all else fails. The idea that people will (or should) be reported for prosecution for no good reason is silly, and doesn't happen in practice and I would resist any attempts by people like colpepper to introduce such a system. I don't really take it as a serious suggestion anyway. This thread is getting more and more bizarre and off-topic by the minute. I really don't know who is arguing what any more.

 

[Flamingo]

Pity, I'd love to seem him stand up in court - he needs a good kicking!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Pity, I'd love to seem him stand up in court - he needs a good kicking!

I imagine someone will have to prove whether there was or was not someone! CCTV would be helpful.

 

[Flamingo]

Maybe, although all that shows is someone going up to a random person in a uniform asking anything from "Is that the Reading train, mate?", or "What did you have for breakfast this morning?".

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Maybe, although all that shows is someone going up to a random person in a uniform asking anything from "Is that the Reading train, mate?", or "What did you have for breakfast this morning?".

Then the staff member would be called as a witness. It's an unnecessary palaver.

 

[Flamingo]

I'm just being obtuse! I'll stop.

 

[Greenback]

I would agree with that definition, but the Passenger's Charter usually doesn't

Take Northern's Passenger Charter for example.....

"...When Purchasing a ticket for immediate travel we try to ensure you will not have to wait more than five minutes in busy periods and three minutes at all other times...."

Which is fine for serving Mr Long-distance, but not so good for Mr Commuter waiting behind him.

:roll:

It's not very well written though is it?! The questions I immediately have when reading stuff like this include:

OK, you will try, but you give no guarantees. I try and lose weight every week, but I don't succeed in that either...

and

Right, you say I won't have to wai for long, but wait for what? Clearly, if I want to get an ALR and reservations for three sleeper services, this is going to take more than three minutes. It can, as you say, take longer than that to do an Advance ticket!

All they need to do is say that we will try to ensure you won;t have to wait more than three minutes to be served. This will avoid any chance of mis interpretation, and result in a target that is much more achievable.

Of course, in any station with a single position someone is always going to have to wait longer if there is already someone being served with a complicated ticket, so I question what is the point of these rather vague assurances in the first place?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

No, it's not very well written, I suspect that will be deliberate, but quite unhelpful.

 

[Flamingo]

I think this thread has had a certain amount of off-topic creep... as it originally was about a nasty TOC making some poor simple company director buy a ticket for her and her family, and her suing them for being so unreasonable as to point out the penalties for fare evasion.

 

[yorkie]

Here is an interesting story, and one worth bearing in mind when passengers are assumed to be to blame!

I posted a few years ago:

We were nice and early at Loughborough last Saturday to use our
advance purchase tickets to London. We were booked on the 07:09,
but as we arrived the 06:59 was drawing in, and displayed on the
indicator. We stood back, but later overheard the platform staff
informing other passengers that this was the re-timed 07:10, due
to engineering works.

We approached, showed our tickets, and asked if we should board.
He rather tetchily muttered words to the effect of "For the
umpteenth time, Yes".

We were booked first, and there was plenty of room, so we found a
couple of unreserved seats and made ourselves comfortable.

Soon our tickets were checked, and by then a dozen others had
already told the same tale. There was no hassle, but we had to
detrain at Leicester and wait for our booked train, which was
running as advertised.

I have to wonder how the guy on the platform got it wrong, but
also what was gained by turfing us off a fairly empty train at
that time of day. I accept it was by the book, but was there any
point?

Chris

Although my 'issue' is not over whether or not the passengers or Virgin were 'to blame' or not, but over the excessive charges made in these circumstances under the rules (although in this case I cannot determine if they were excessed - which would be fair - or if the rules were followed to the letter, as it is unclear if the figure quoted for replacement tickets is for the entire group or just the family, and it is also unclear exactly which tickets were originally held)

 

[RochdalePioneers]

I read the first five pages then skipped ahead.

The one conclusion I can draw from this is that for normals, travel by train simply isn't worth it. Virgin had them bang to rights according to their Terms and Conditions, so the letter of the law is on their side. But is the spirit? Is it good business practice to threaten a 14 year old boy with prison for catching the train one in front of the one his parents should have taken him on?

As an enthusiast who is now a family man and an occasional traveller, if I didn't have a bit of knowledge other than what I read in the papers I wouldn't touch the railways with a pole when travelling with my family - the fine for getting it wrong being a bill the same size as a weeks holiday somewhere hot. And that is the utter madness here - not whether or not Virgin correctly applied their T&Cs, but whether those T&Cs are insane or not.

 

[Flamingo]

I read the first five pages then skipped ahead.

The one conclusion I can draw from this is that for normals, travel by train simply isn't worth it. Virgin had them bang to rights according to their Terms and Conditions, so the letter of the law is on their side. But is the spirit? Is it good business practice to threaten a 14 year old boy with prison for catching the train one in front of the one his parents should have taken him on?

As an enthusiast who is now a family man and an occasional traveller, if I didn't have a bit of knowledge other than what I read in the papers I wouldn't touch the railways with a pole when travelling with my family - the fine for getting it wrong being a bill the same size as a weeks holiday somewhere hot. And that is the utter madness here - not whether or not Virgin correctly applied their T&Cs, but whether those T&Cs are insane or not.

It's easy enough. They had restricted tickets which gave them a considerable discount. If they had stuck to the restrictions they had agreed to when they bought the ticket there would have been no problem. Millions of journeys are made with these tickets without any problems - their problem was they got caught, and are trying to make Virgin let them away by providing bad publicity for muppets who can only read a headline and instantly leap on the outrage bus. :roll:

From a business point of view, I think it makes perfect sense for Virgin to take cases like this further - the resulting publicity highlights the restriction, and makes those are going to chance their arm to think twice. That does keep these sort of problems to a minimum, and the passengers who are going to try and fare evade can decide it's less hassle to catch the Megabus instead, leaving more room for fare-paying passengers.

The letter that was sent was advising them of the consequences of being taken to court for non-payment and fare evasion. It would have been sent to everybody.

It could be argued that it was the parents fault for putting their underage son in a position to receive the letter, and also, what kind of example are they teaching him by trying to show that if you kick up enough of a fuss, you can get things you haven't paid for, and never have to take any responsibility. That will help him grow up into a responsible adult, I'm sure.