Was this trying to 'start late' on an Advance ticket?

[CC 72100]

Just seen this come up on my BBC homepage, story about a chap who had a ticket (the type is not specified) for Newton Abbot - Pad, ended up catching the train from Exeter and as a result had to buy a new ticket.

Also will be featured in 15 minutes or so on local news!

Is this simply a case of the passenger being in the wrong - trying to board a train a later stop and thus not sticking to the Terms & Conditions of the Advance ticket or poor training and the staff member in the wrong?

Annoyingly, it does not state in this article the type of ticket the passenger held!

Link here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-21503675

Apology after man told to pay for London train trip twice

A train company has apologised after staff refused to let a passenger board a train for which he had a ticket.

Alan Connett had a ticket from Newton Abbot to London Paddington, but decided to board the train up the line at Exeter after his circumstances changed.

A First Great Western guard would not let him on, saying he had to buy a new ticket for the same train costing £144.

First Great Western said staff did not break any rules, but apologised, saying more discretion should have been shown.

'A bit silly'
Mr Connett said he changed his travel plans because his car had to go in for repairs and he was offered a lift to Exeter.

He said: "I didn't see anything wrong with that, and I think most people would ask what was the problem for First Great Western. It seems a bit silly to me.

"I don't see what the disadvantage is to First Great Western of someone trying to do what I did, for very good reasons."

Mr Connett did buy a second ticket.

Dan Paynes, from First Great Western, said staff did have to ensure tickets were valid for the actual journeys for which they were bought.

But he added: "In the circumstances, I don't really understand why we didn't let him on.

"We apologise profusely and we'll be refunding him his money.

"We'll make sure that our colleagues know the rules and that they exercise them sensibly."

 

[LexyBoy]

It's also unclear whether he was refused onto the platform at Exeter - in which case the ticket office definitely should have excessed the ticket to a walk-on fare - or on-board, in which case I still think an excess would be the correct procedure for undertaking a break of journey (which this effectively is), providing the train is the correct one if an Advance is held.

Also there is no Exeter-London fare at £144. The SOS is £114.50.

 

[island]

That's really poor by FGW, totally undermining its staff. The rules of Advance tickets are clear although the passenger could have been offered an excess to a walk-up ticket.

 

[CC 72100]

Just watched the news report - although it did not at any point mention the specific ticket, it would seem that the passenger had an advance ticket. The spokesperson from FGW confirmed that the right policy was applied, but in this case should have been ignored, discretion used and no new ticket charged.... bit of a nightmare for staff then - leaves them unsure when to use discretion, and even if they follow the rulebook to the letter, they still have done 'wrong'!

FGW staff, you have my sympathy!

 

[island]

My understanding is that FGW would like its staff to ensure trains run on time, avoid complaints, and collect revenue, in that order from highest to lowest priority.

 

[Be3G]

Note that the article text has changed since it was copied-and-pasted on to this forum above – it does now say it was an advance ticket.

 

[sheff1]

FGW staff, you have my sympathy!

Mine too. If FGW feel the current rules are inappropriate they should change them to something more appropriate, not give mixed messages to staff.

There should not even be any need to get agreement from other TOCs for FGW only tickets - witness the different rules applied by fellow First Group operator TPE with their Airport Advance tickets.

 

[CC 72100]

Note that the article text has changed since it was copied-and-pasted on to this forum above –*it does now say it was an advance ticket.

So I see. The following sentence was added: "There are rules are about advance tickets. There are conditions attached, and we want to make sure that people follow those."

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Also there is no Exeter-London fare at £144. The SOS is £114.50.

You've made two assumptions based on information you do not have. However, looking at the BRFares website, there is a £37 First Advance from Newton Abbot and a £181 First Anytime Single from Exeter to Paddington, which you may notice have a difference in value of £144, but even I would have to make assumptions to say that is what he paid for....

 

[Flamingo]

No comment! (except to thank everybody for their sympathy).

 

[LexyBoy]

Agreed on FGW's poor response (fairly typical though). Bad not only for staff but also passengers, as the implication is that it's really OK not to stick to the T&Cs, as staff aren't supposed to apply them. And reinforces the idea that tickets are only valid at the stations printed on them.

Without knowing what tickets were actually held/charged for we can't say whether what happened was reasonable or correct. I'd say (in general) that most people will be OK with a modest charge for changing their plans - it's when the charge seems out of proportion that there's a protest.

You've made two assumptions based on information you do not have. However, looking at the BRFares website, there is a £37 First Advance from Newton Abbot and a £181 First Anytime Single from Exeter to Paddington, which you may notice have a difference in value of £144, but even I would have to make assumptions to say that is what he paid for....

Fair point about making assumptions - the text does say "new ticket" though which I'd not consider an excess to be. It could be that the destination wasn't Paddington though (amongst other things).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

.....Fair point about making assumptions - the text does say "new ticket" though which I'd not consider an excess to be. It could be that the destination wasn't Paddington though (amongst other things).

From the point of view of someone who understands or knows about excess fares, you may be right in not considering it a new ticket, but from Joe Public's point of view? I'm not so sure.

Oh btw, good point about the destination, that's a third assumption....

 

[BrianTheLion]

Do you think its time for the travelling public to actually take notice of what type(s) of ticket they hold? and the various permutations that go with them?

Or should the TOC's babysit them and provide them with specific instructions such as "THE TRAIN MUST BE BOARDED AT THE ORIGIN STATION SHOWN ON THE TICKET"

It would be nice to know just how much your average joe knows about the tickets they hold..

 

[Goatboy]

Do you think its time for the travelling public to actually take notice of what type(s) of ticket they hold? and the various permutations that go with them?

Or perhaps its time for a common-sense approach - lets be honest here, he was boarding exactly the same train heading to exactly the same destination, just 20 minutes further down the line. You can see why most of the general public would not even give a moments second thought to whether that was valid or not.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Agreed. I bet 99% of the travelling public would think the same way. Afterall if you buy a movie ticket but only go in twenty minutes after the film has started you would not expect to have to buy a new ticket.

Ultimately this rule is not common sense so if the TOCs want to enforce it they should ensure passengers are told.

 

[CC 72100]

Agreed. I bet 99% of the travelling public would think the same way. Afterall if you buy a movie ticket but only go in twenty minutes after the film has started you would not expect to have to buy a new ticket.

Ultimately this rule is not common sense so if the TOCs want to enforce it they should ensure passengers are told.

And back up their staff when they do enforce it as they should! What sort of message does the actions of the FGW spokesperson in saying 'they (the staff member) followed the rules correctly but were still wrong' give out?!

 

[Holly]

Or perhaps its time for a common-sense approach - lets be honest here, he was boarding exactly the same train heading to exactly the same destination, just 20 minutes further down the line. You can see why most of the general public would not even give a moments second thought to whether that was valid or not.

I think the railway is totally within its legal rights to void the existing carriage contract if it is broken by attempting to board long. More exactly by failing to board at the agreed place and time.

But -- it is appallingly public relations for them to enforce that. Huge bad publicity for exploiting a customer who already paid. Why would a TOC want to shoot itself in the foot and highly publicise that they are unreasonable people who care only about profit and care nothing about customer service?
There might be an exception for sleeper berths of no-shows that get sold off.

Also, I am not at all sure they are within their rights to prohibit ending short. In that case the passenger is 100% compliant up to the moment of alighting. And when alighting repudiates the contract. That means (should mean) that any money fares paid or promised remain in place and any transport already delivered remains valid. By walking away the customer ends his or her rights, including any right to further travel. But ending short typically means that no further travel is wanted or expected anyway. The customer is not trespassing when he or she steps onto the platform, but must leave railway property as soon as reasonably possible (in the absence of a further contract for more travel). Because his or her sole reason for being on the platform is to try to promptly leave the railway property.

Prohibiting ending short is really no different in law from trying to fine you for buying an advance ticket and then no-showing. The appropriate civil law penalty is that you lose your rights to contracted travel privileges as of the moment of breaching the contract, nothing more than that.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's really poor by FGW, totally undermining its staff. The rules of Advance tickets are clear although the passenger could have been offered an excess to a walk-up ticket.

Recent ATOC guidance has actually suggested explicitly that customers should not be penalised for starting late or finishing early on an Advance ticket unless there is a clear attempt at evading the proper fare due.

An example of evading the fare due would be someone purchasing a £7 Advance ticket from Coventry to London but boarding at Milton Keynes. MKC does not have Advance flows to London (VT) and the Advance is cheaper than the walk-up fare.

In this specific case, there is no evading of the fare.

I would bet a great deal of money that few TOC staff on here have seen that guidance.

 

[cjohnson]

It would be nice to know just how much your average joe knows about the tickets they hold..

The ORR's study released last year might be worth a read - e.g. "Of all rail passengers interviewed on-train, 70% were unaware that you can only travel on the specified train on an Advance ticket"

 

[AlterEgo]

The ORR's study released last year might be worth a read - e.g. "Of all rail passengers interviewed on-train, 70% were unaware that you can only travel on the specified train on an Advance ticket"

Actually the ORR's study wouldn't answer the question about passenger knowledge about the tickets they hold.

The study simply asked a cross section of passengers whether they knew the Advance terms and conditions. They interviewed a large number of people who hold season tickets, or were travelling on business, who never buy Advances and would therefore know nothing about them.

It's as useful as asking someone on a day trip to Blackpool on a cheap Advance the terms and conditions of a season ticket.

 

[cuccir]

Recent ATOC guidance has actually suggested explicitly that customers should not be penalised for starting late or finishing early on an Advance ticket unless there is a clear attempt at evading the proper fare due.

An example of evading the fare due would be someone purchasing a £7 Advance ticket from Coventry to London but boarding at Milton Keynes. MKC does not have Advance flows to London (VT) and the Advance is cheaper than the walk-up fare.

In this specific case, there is no evading of the fare.

I would bet a great deal of money that few TOC staff on here have seen that guidance.

Then perhaps the terms and conditions should be changed, or at least some guidelines offered. Or is this another case of regulations driven by the whims of the latest private ATOC memos? Perhaps travellers could be told when it's deemed that they're evading the fare and when it's deemed that they're just 'finishing late'

 

[GadgetMan]

It would be nice to know just how much your average joe knows about the tickets they hold..

A significant number of passengers struggle with the basics of Railway Ticketing.

They don't realise that an Advance Ticket and a ticket purchased in advance isn't necessarily the same thing.

At New st passengers going to London often approach staff after the "LM tickets are not valid on this service" announcement asking how much more they have to pay to travel on the Virgin Train. When in fact they already hold a Any Permitted ticket but purchased from a LM Ticket office or LM Website. Makes you wonder how many people with Any Permitted ticket turn away and board a LM service thinking thats what they HAVE to do unnecessarily.

Then you have passengers who purchase Walk Up tickets online and get issued with Seat Reservations, who then feel they are bound by the reservation and cannot travel on other Peak/Off Peak trains.

And it goes on and on........

 

[Pumbaa]

A significant number of passengers struggle with the basics of Railway Ticketing.

And most importantly, that is not their fault. Until the railway (collectively) gets its arse in gear, it will remain a most backward industry.

 

[richw]

Interestingly When buying advance tickets online from FGW it only gives the following information.

Origin:Newton Abbot
Destination:London Terminals
Date:Tue 12 Mar 2013 Changes: Duration:
Valid on chosen train only. Non refundable. Changeable for a fee before departure

Nowhere does it state you must start at origin or finish at destination when booking a ticket online from FGW, just that you must be on the chosen train.

 

[island]

And most importantly, that is not their fault. Until the railway (collectively) gets its arse in gear, it will remain a most backward industry.

I'm in Japan at the moment, which you might consider advanced, high-tech, and so on.

There are no advance tickets, or off-peak tickets, or return tickets here. Just walk-up tickets, season tickets, and visitor tickets (which are like the BritRail pass). Tickets are priced per kilometre with a supplement for reservations and for first class. No railcards.

A ticket from Tokyo to Nagoya (229 miles) costs ¥10,380 single, ¥21,760 return (roughly £73 each way). First class is around 40% more. A similar distance journey in the UK is London to Darlington, for which single tickets can be had from £16.30 (£10.75 with a Railcard). Now, an SOR is £290 or double the Japanese price, but an SSR at £116.80 is less.

I for one am happier to have a range of prices to choose from, even if it means it's a little more complicated.

 

[RPI]

....................

 

[Goatboy]

some advance fares from NTA are cheaper than from EXD

Which to anyone rational person is of course completely ridiculous, given that exactly the same train is involved therefore it isn't the case that trains from Newton Abbot are empty and trains from EXD are full so demand management pricing is used to even the loadings. It's simply the next stop. Had he boarded as intended at Newton Abbot he would have have occupied his seat all the way to London. Had he boarded with this ticket at EXD then... exactly the same thing would have happened. The same seat would have been occupied for 95% of the time it would have been anyway!

We all know what the rules are and nobody here would have been suprised or attempted to do it but this sort of thing does nothing to help the image problem the railway often has.

He has a ticket to travel on that train between Newton Abbot and London Paddington. If your story is true then amazingly he seemed content to buy a ticket to Taunton just to gain access to the platform to board a train for which he had already purchased a ticket but somebody decided that no, this wasn't enough and instead he should go and buy yet another ticket. According to the rules, entirely appropriate. According to any brand of common sense, completely ridiculous and a public relations disaster. I'm not sure on what grounds they could deny him access to the train with a ticket to Taunton as he had a valid ticket to travel on that train from Exeter - had he then stayed on past Taunton it would be a matter for the train manager, but until he did that, what had he done wrong with his Taunton single?

Lets stick to focusing on the real fare evaders rather than people like this chap. He obviously wasn't trying it on hence his purchase of the Taunton single, any fare dodger would have bought a single to Exeter Central instead at £1 rather than a single to Taunton at ten times this amount.

 

[yorksrob]

As I have long suspected, the stopping short rule is neither intelligeable nor enforceable. Time for a rethink.

 

[RPI]

.......................

 

[Goatboy]

Unless the facts as reported that he held a Newton Abbot to Paddington Advance and boarded that train at Exeter St Davids are not true then there 'being more to it' doesn't really affect the discussion much.