When using an advance ticket, do you have to use it EXACTLY as specified....

[hairyhandedfool]

Whilst I consider your points, can you explain why they were charged a Penalty Fare.

Ending a journey early falls within section 16 of the NCOC, which explains that it should be dealt with by an excess fare, which is calculated as the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket(s) available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to start, break and resume, or end your journey at that station on the service(s) you have used.

The NCoC also says the TOCs may give more restrictive rights for reduced price tickets provided they make the traveller aware of them (The T&Cs that they ticked the box to say they had read). Penalty Fares rules also take precedence over excess fares rules, this will be noted on the Penalty Fares notices displayed in a prominent position at all Penalty Fares scheme stations for everyone to read (and is probably also in the T&Cs).

To continue the question I asked on the other thread that was locked with the request to continue the discussion here -

Is there any reason why the couple could not have bought a normal £3.40 Eastleigh to Southampton ticket, to complete their 'journey'

I understand that the Megatrain ticket was valid under the terms of the National Conditions of Carriage between London Waterloo and Southampton with no 'break of journey allowed'.

But a 'break of journey' is specifically defined in the NCOC as leaving the train station. Merely getting off the train at Eastleigh is not a 'break of journey'.

Therefore if you reach Southampton without leaving railway property, you have not had a 'break of journey'.

So you have not invalidated your London Waterloo to Southampton Megatrain ticket.

The problem is that you just don't have a valid Eastleigh to Southampton ticket to complete your journey.

Hence the question, could they have just asked the ticket inspector to sell them a £3.40 Eastleigh to Southampton ticket?

If the pair had shown the inspectors at Eastleigh a ticket from Southampton to Eastleigh ticket for each of them, they may have passed through unnoticed (although this is still wrong IMO), however the Insepctors may have noticed that a train from Southampton had not recently arrived, aswell as the fact a train in the opposite direction had just arrived might alert the inspectors to an attempt at avoiding paying the 'correct' fare.

Also, the conditions of the ticket are that you use the trains you agreed to use when you bought the ticket, as illustrated by the seat reservations, as soon as they alighted from that train at Eastleigh, they almost certainly invalidated the ticket.

Furthermore, having started their journey at a Penalty Fare station, they were expected to have in their possession, tickets for their entire journey unless facilities were not available to buy the tickets they required.

Yes it is. If I take a library book out for a month and take it back after two days, the library have done well.

SWT in this case have actually saved money, there are two spare empty seats between Eastleigh and their destination, they won't be using facilities onboard for as long etc.

What the majority of people don't understand is why travelling a shorter distance costs more money. A very simple argument. Having a blinkered Railways T&Cs view of things simply doesn't wash with the public.

The library book example might work for an Anytime Return (where you can return at any time within a month, but to compare it to an Advance fare, with all it's restrictions, is as bad as Yorkie's cans of drink!

The fare from London to Eastleigh is £28.50 each, the fare they paid was £6 each, If they didn't buy that megatrain ticket, who is to say no-one else would have bought it? If someone else did want to buy it, but couldn't because the quota had sold out and they chose to drive instead, how exactly have SWT saved money? If anything they have lost out.

You trade cheaper fares for more restrictions, it's not a hard concept to grasp for most people. The most obvious answer to there being no cheap fare for a given journey is that there is no need for teh operatior to discount them further, supply and demand, again, not a hard concept, but maybe there are othere reasons besides.

At the end of the day, the conditions of tickets are there for a reason and should be adhered to. Those who fail to adhere to them should not benefit from it.

.... So, what do you do. Well instead of making this couple pay the full penalty fare from London to Eastleigh I'd charge them a penalty fare from Southampton to Eastleigh. That way you are recognising that what they've actually done is deprive swt of the fare back from Southampton.

Brilliant! That'll teach them to adhere to the conditions in future. As a one off incident....

Actual fare paid = £52 (£40 PF* + £12 Advance fares)....

Fare they would have paid for the journey actually made = £57.

Therefore their penalty for breaking the conditions of the ticket is actually a saving of £5.

And if it transpires that they get caught once in every four attempts, their penalty becomes a saving of £140!

And lets not forget that it might stop someone who is actually travelling to Southampton from getting the cheaper fare aswell.

[*Assuming a Penalty Fare is still double the single fare or £20, whichever is greater]

....Getting the £57, plus getting to keep the original £12 paid for the advances should be sufficient.
The company get their fare - no admin costs necessary as it's done face to face - and the loss of the £12 acts as a deterrent for the couple not to do it again.

But to double the amount to £114 is, again to my mind, ludicrous and profiteering. The company cannot claim there is any extra cost to be covered by doing this, it is purely to punish the passenger. Now by all means, have a deterrent, but keep it proportional.

If this had gone to press with the story being the couple getting charged £28 each to cover the cost of the tickets they should have used then perhaps the public would be less incensed. Perhaps more people would see it as "fair"?

Persistant fare evaders are a different kettle of fish. They'll keep popping up on the radar and can be dealt with by different means.

Can you say that everytime this happens, it is easy to spot who is the serial fare evader and who has made a genuine mistake/error?

Do you really think the press are worried about the value of the fare, or do you think they are going to write a piece on how they were charged more for making a shorter journey on the same train?

Is £12 really a deterant? If the offenders get caught once in every five attempts, is it still a deterant?

 

[Clip]

Yorkie - I see where you're coming from on this. What concerns me is how clear it is in the booking process. My understanding on the banking charge fiasco was that there were penalties hidden away in small print. I've never used the Megatrain site, so I'm not aware how clear they make the T&Cs. If the whole thing isn't made clear at the booking process, then I'd agree that a 3 figure PF is a bit strong. Still, there's an old saying - 'let the buyer beware'. If you're getting a London-Southampton trip for 6 quid then you must know there will be some strong conditions attached to that. If you've not taken the time and trouble to understand them then whose fault is that really? V

The T&Cs are as clear as can be. - you have a link to read before you tick the box and they probably didnt bother to read them.

 

[Greenback]

Smart people who plan such things would not caught by barriers!

erhaps they were smart enough to realise they had a very cheap fare, but not smart enough to be able to 'work the system'?

Yes indeed - I would agree with that

With regard to the Mega-train couple at Eastleigh, I do find the situation with these tickets concerning as it does seem that passengers in settlements such as Eastleigh are rather arbitrarily discriminated against.

It seems to be deliberate policy not to offer mega cheap tickets to Eastleigh as it's not served by the competing coach.

What everyone forgets is that most of us on this forum are railway geeks and understand these things. The majority of the travelling public don't.

These stories simply make the railway out to be a bureaucratic world of it's own policed by SS type jobsworths which simply puts people in their cars instead of on the railways. Yes they broke the rules of the ticket, but so would most people, a slap on the wrist and a quick explanation of the ticket rules would have sufficed. Again, the majority of people would be glad of the advice.

The couple didn't try and cheat anyone out of revenue, they simply did what nine out of ten people would do if meeting friends and think nothing of it. I'd be amazed if a couple would go to the media if they got caught trying to pull a stroke.

Whther they have deliberately tried to cheat SWT out of revenue is irrelevant. They chose to buy a very, very cheap ticket to Southampton which was not valid to alight at Eastleigh. The correct fare for such a ticket is much higher than the £6 they paid. As has been said, this deprives SWT of revenue, at the very least the fare from Southampton back to Eastleigh!

Firstly I don't think anyone can honestly believe they story about 'getting off to meet friends for lunch', they were getting off because it was the closest station to where they live.

They ticked the box to say they agreed to the terms and conditions, they then took it upon themselves to ignore those T+Cs (specifically condition 4 as already discussed in this thread) and expected the railway to honour it's part of the bargain. Basically they entered into a contract, reneged on their part of the contract but still expected the other party to keep to the rules. You don't need to be a 'railway geek' to understand that this kind of behaviour comes with risks.

And again the word 'jobsworth' rears it's ugly head, it seems to be the insult of choice for people who think they are above the rules.

Quite. I despair whenever I read that over used phrase. Esther Rantzen has a lot to answer for.

The T&Cs are irrelevant, everyone agrees to T&Cs every day of their life and breaks them!

Common sense needs to be used. The railways try and promote these discount tickets and then behave like bullies when the rules are broken even though they've lost no money by this couples action.

The image of the railways is the issue here for me, the breaking the terms of the ticket isn't the main issue. Look at the comments on that story, the general public are appalled by these stories.

Jobsworth is a very apt word for someone who charges someone three figures for having a valid ticket for that stretch of line. A warning and friendly explanation of the rules would have been correct, discretion is the key, something that I find is lacking in RPIs in general.

When we break rules, or T&C's, we should not complain too loudly if we are caught out. The railway has lost money by virtue of the couple attempting to travel on an invalid ticket. The ticke tis not valid for getting off the train at Eastleigh!

Yes, there are ways around the T&C's. Yes, the fares system is a complete mess. Yes, PF's should be outlawed. But the underlining prionciple in offering very cheap tickets is that they are very inflexible compared to higher priced products. This should not be too difficult for most people to comprehend. And I assume that the couple in question did understand this, since they would have confirmed that they had read, understood and accepted the T&C's during the booking process.

 

[djh1986]

Interesting take on it from a blog on the Economist site and some interesting comments:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/09/ticketing_rules

As I say, if we all played by every rule in every rulebook and T&Cs document, we'd never get anything done and we'd turn into a bureaucratic state. It simply looks bad outside of circles that understand the ins and outs of railway ticketing procedures.

 

[Greenback]

Yes, that is interesting. I am reconsidering my views, I hadn;t realised there was so much verbose drivel involved...

 

[Clip]

Yes, that is interesting. I am reconsidering my views, I hadn;t realised there was so much verbose drivel involved...

There is and the first part of the T&Cs seem to be more concerned about the use of the website and the trademark of megatrain for some reason - though it really isnt had to scroll down to the reservation terms and conditions.

 

[87 027]

See legal case of Parker v South Eastern Railway 1877. Customer tried to argue not bound by T&Cs because he hadn't read them - didn't win, of course!

 

[Matt Taylor]

I do like the final comment on that Economist piece:

"If you want flexibility, don't be a tight smeghead..."

 

[sheff1]

Not sure if this is the best place, as this thread involves a number of different discussions, but here goes. Just to be clear – I am fully aware of the T&Cs for advance rail tickets but am joining the ‘are the T&Cs reasonable?’ debate.

My view is that purchasing an advance rail ticket is more akin to making an advance rate hotel room booking than to the purchase of Mars Bars, multipack drinks etc. This is because a rail ticket / hotel booking entitles you to use something for a timebound period but that ‘something’ does not, at any stage, become your property (so you can’t pee on the train seat or the hotel bed with impunity ).

An advance train ticket on, say, the 1354 from Sheffield to Bristol entitles you to use a specific seat, in a specific coach, on a specific date from the time the train departs until the time of arrival – 1354 – 1641.

Similarly, a hotel booking entitles you to use a specific room in a specific hotel from check in time to check out time – say 1400 – 1200.

* Nobody would expect to make a hotel booking for one day and demand to use the same room on another day on the grounds that ‘the cost is the same’ – so, perfectly reasonable that the train ticket is limited to one specific date.

* Nobody would make a hotel booking for hotel A and then expect to be accommodated at hotel B – so, perfectly reasonable for the advance ticket to be limited to one specific train.

* If the hotel checkout is 1200 then, if you wanted to stay later, you would expect some sort of extra fee, increasing the longer you stayed – so, if you wanted your train seat for longer (i.e. travel further) you would expect to pay a further fee and could reasonably expect the cost be a single ticket from Bristol to Taunton, Exeter or wherever. Same principle with a single from Wakefield to Sheffield, etc for early joining.

.... Now the important bit ….

Although your hotel room is at your disposal from 1400 – 1200, no hotel would insist you occupy the room for the whole period and most certainly would not charge you extra if you arrived at 1800 and left at 0900. This is where the railway T&Cs are not reasonable – ignoring any late running, you have paid for reserved personal use of the seat from 1354 -1641. If you choose to use it only from 1406 – 1552 (Chesterfield to Cheltenham) there should, in my view, be no question of an extra charge of any sort (which, as it stands, could be the cost of a whole new booking plus, in some areas, a Penalty supplement)

 

[djh1986]

Although your hotel room is at your disposal from 1400 – 1200, no hotel would insist you occupy the room for the whole period and most certainly would not charge you extra if you arrived at 1800 and left at 0900. This is where the railway T&Cs are not reasonable – ignoring any late running, you have paid for reserved personal use of the seat from 1354 -1641. If you choose to use it only from 1406 – 1552 (Chesterfield to Cheltenham) there should, in my view, be no question of an extra charge of any sort (which, as it stands, could be the cost of a whole new booking plus, in some areas, a Penalty supplement)

Absolutely spot on which is the crux of Joe Public's argument and the key to the large negative press coverage of the story. It's not an unreasonable argument!

 

[Wolfie]

Try buying a bargain basement air fare to Switzerland and then flying to France with it! People always have plenty of time to bitch about everything wrong with their journey to the nth degree, but people get found out like this by just ticking the 'I have read and understood the terms & conditions' box if they purchase online, so they can issue the ticket. By ticking that box, they agree to be bound by them, full stop.

I shall not cry for their fine TBH.

A ridiculous analogy - does the flight stop in France? A big difference compared to a train which actually stops at the station in question en route to its destination.

Incidentally, carry on the good work for the road lobby - it is people like you who will end up closing the rail system down - when you have annoyed enough ordinary voters watch the subsidies stop!

 

[MCR247]

I don't get the big deal? It quite simple. Adhere to the rules or get punished. Is it that hard to understand? Really?

 

[Wolfie]

Well, were I one of this couple (and, given the level of advise available on the web eg from CAG, I wouldn't bet that they will not) I would be suing SWT and Magatrain in the County Court utilising the Unfair Terms and Conditions of Contract legislation. "Please explain the actual losses arising from getting off two stations early....."

It costs the £30 to file - it will cost SWT/Magatrain thousands to defend. I actually wonder if this is a put-up job given the publicity to date as there are those out there who have just been looking for an opportunity to go after the TOCs. SWT/Magatrain would be between a rock and a hard place - defend and lose and the entire edifice crumbles, do not defend and, given the publicity, the entire edifice crumbles.......

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Well, were I one of this couple (and, given the level of advise available on the web eg from CAG, I wouldn't bet that they will not) I would be suing SWT and Magatrain in the County Court utilising the Unfair Terms and Conditions of Contract legislation. "Please explain the actual losses arising from getting off two stations early....."

SWT have lost money.

A Megatrain ticket to Southampton for the both of them is £12. 2 Off Peak singles to Eastleigh are 55.40. SWT have lost out on £43.40.

 

[Wolfie]

Well, well, this is certainly being discussed on MSE, see:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2709181&page=3

The post from Imp is interesting:

"Sorry to be pedantic, but


Quote:
When they handed over their tickets at the station, they were told they were each being fined £57 because they had not stayed on the train until their destination. The fine was twice the standard fare of £28.50.


National Rail Conditions of Carriage state


Quote:


2. Requirement to hold a ticket


Before you travel you must have a ticket or other authority to travel which is valid for the
train(s) you intend to use and for the journey you intend to make.
If you travel in a train:
(a) without a ticket; or
(b) the circumstances described in any of Conditions 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22,
30, 35 and 39 apply;
you will be liable to pay the full single fare or full return fare or, if appropriate, a Penalty
Fare (see Condition 4) for your journey.




Quote:


4. Penalty Fares


Penalty Fares are charged by Train Companies at some stations and in some trains. You
may be liable to pay a Penalty Fare if:
(a) you travel in a train without a ticket or Permit to Travel; or
(b) you travel in a class of accommodation for which the ticket is not valid; or
(c) you travel in a train and the circumstances set out in any of Conditions 10,
11, 12, 18, 19, 22, 30, 35 and 39 apply; or
(d) you are present in a Compulsory Ticket Area without a ticket or Permit to
Travel
Warning notices are displayed at stations where Penalty Fares are charged. You will not
have to pay the full single fare or full return fare under Condition 2 if a Penalty Fare is
charged. A Train Company which operates a Penalty Fares scheme will send you a copy of
the rules about Penalty Fares and a summary of their scheme if you ask.



Interupting your journey when you are not entitled to is Condition 16, therefore the couple were not liable to pay any further money for leaving the train before their stop, except for the cost of the lowest price ticket which they could have bought at their initial station (Condition 16)


Hum, if correct, definite grounds for legal action.....(oh and don't forget the 8% interest!)

The posting from my semi-namesake shows how much of "Joe Public" feels.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As a friend of the railways I must say you don't need too many things like this coming up when you google SWT and Penalty Fares to be deeply cynical. Perhaps my semi-name sake on MSE will get his way.

http://www.shrug.info/Hogrider115/Understanding Revenue Protection on South West Trains.doc

 

[PTF62]

Originally Posted by PTF62 -


Ending a journey early falls within section 16 of the NCOC, which explains that it should be dealt with by an excess fare, which is calculated as the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket(s) available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to start, break and resume, or end your journey at that station on the service(s) you have used.

The NCoC also says the TOCs may give more restrictive rights for reduced price tickets provided they make the traveller aware of them (The T&Cs that they ticked the box to say they had read). Penalty Fares rules also take precedence over excess fares rules, this will be noted on the Penalty Fares notices displayed in a prominent position at all Penalty Fares scheme stations for everyone to read (and is probably also in the T&Cs).

But the T&Cs for Megatrain don't give the right to charge a penalty fare - These are the relevant T&Cs from their website, and I have bolded the only two parts that seem to apply -

Reservation terms and conditions

1. If travelling with megatrain.com the choice of trains are limited and pre-determined. For details see the Timetables section of the website.
2. You must be over 16 years of age to purchase the products and services on our website.
3. Customers can amend a megatrain booking up to 48 hours in advance of the first scheduled journey time on the booking. Bookings for megabus.com journeys must make any changes 24 hours prior to the first journey departure on the reservation. A £1 fee (50p amendment and 50p booking) is charged for all reservations being changed.. The cost of the initial reservation will be credited against the subsequent reservation. Should the subsequent order be less expensive than the initial reservation, no payment or further credit will be made to the customer, all unused credit will be forfeited. Should the initial order be less expensive than the subsequent order the balance will be payable by the customer at the time of booking.
4. Bookings are only valid on the journey(s) and places stated.
5. A maximum of two children under 5 years old may travel with each fare-paying adult for free on megatrain.com. Children under 3 years old may travel for free with fare paying adult on megabus.com. However children travelling for free are not guaranteed a seat unless a seat has been purchased for them and a reservation number is provided. They may not use seats if fare paying passengers want them.
6. All children under the age of 14 years must be accompanied by an adult (16 years of age or over) when travelling on megabus.com services.
7. Passengers are required to present a valid reference number, provided at the time of booking, when boarding one of our services or entering/departing a train station.
8. Concession passengers travelling within Scotland on megabus.com services who have booked concession seats must present their Entitlement card when boarding the bus.
9. To qualify for entitled discount, NUS Extra passengers will be required to confirm they are a valid NUS Extra member at the time of booking by providing their membership number. The discount is only applicable to seats occupied by those passengers in possession of a valid NUS Extra card at the time of travelling.All passengers travelling on a seat booked with NUS Extra discount will be required to present their NUS Extra membership card on demand to Stagecoach and/or any of their affiliates. Anyone attempting to travel using this discount, not in possession of a valid reservation number and NUS Extra card, will be subject to a £10 penalty fare at the time of boarding on megabus.com services. (megatrain.com train rail sections of megabusplus.com journeys will be subject to penalty fares in line with the National Conditions of Carriage) or can opt not to travel, in which case no refund will be given. This is not to be used in conjunction with any other discount offer.
10. If we have reason to suspect fraudulent use of a confirmation, transfer to a different person, or other abuse, we reserve the right to refuse you travel on our service(s). No refund will be made in relation to any confirmation refused due to fraudulent use.
11. Passengers are required to be at their departure point at least 10 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time, This allows passengers to board in a timely manner avoiding any delays that may impact on the departure of the service.
12. When your reservation has been completed we will issue you with a confirmation e-mail. It is your responsibility to check that the confirmation issued to you is accurate. We are only responsible for issuing the confirmation in line with your request made on the website.
13. Passengers are advised that megabus.com will accept up to one piece of luggage per passenger. For guidance this should be no more than the size of a standard suitcase. Passengers can also take on board one piece of hand luggage up to the size of a small to medium sized hold-all. Luggage will be carried on megatrain.com in accordance with our accompanied articles policy found in the National Conditions of Carriage.
14. Our services are unable to carry animals, with the exception of guide dogs.
15. Stagecoach Group and affiliated company staff passes are not valid for travel on our services.
16. megatrain.com tickets are for standard class travel only, and no upgrades are available.
17. Seat reservations are not permitted for megatrain.com bookings, but we will do our best to provide all customers with a seat for their journey.
18. It is your responsibility to check that the confirmation issued via the website or phone matches your request, and is accurate.
19. If the train you are booked on is cancelled, you may travel only on the next train provided by the carrier, or you may have a full refund of the fare (and the booking fee). If you decide not to travel for any other reason, you may apply for a refund, (subject to an administration charge of £10.00 per booking) by writing to:

megatrain.com
Stagecoach Group plc in Perth
Inveralmond Industrial Estate
Perth, PH1 3EE

Compensation for delays is not offered.
20. Rail travel is undertaken under the National Rail Conditions of Carriage as amended by these terms. A copy can be obtained from staffed train stations or from www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/.
21. Bookings with us may not be refunded except where we have materially failed in their delivery of the service offered by this site.

So Megatrain are not imposing any more restrictive rights on their tickets, than already exist in the NCOC on tickets where you must travel on a specific train between specific points, e.g. an Advance ticket.

Looking at the Southwest Trains Penalty Fare information, again there is nothing that imposes more restrictive terms than the NCOC - http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/penaltyfares.aspx

So why were they charged a Penalty Fare rather than an Excess Fare?

 

[Username]

Can you say that everytime this happens, it is easy to spot who is the serial fare evader and who has made a genuine mistake/error?

Do you really think the press are worried about the value of the fare, or do you think they are going to write a piece on how they were charged more for making a shorter journey on the same train?

Is £12 really a deterant? If the offenders get caught once in every five attempts, is it still a deterrent?

Serial fare evaders generally operate within a particular geographic area, normally due to the fact that they evade in the area where they live. If a report is made each time they are encountered then the company has the ability to build up a picture of their fare evasion as their details will crop up time and again. This is what I meant by 'popping up on the radar'. Once a pattern of their evasion has been established, their behaviour can be dealt with accordingly.

It is impossible on the basis of a single incident to distinguish between a serial fare evader and a passenger who has made a genuine mistake, yet the person who has made a genuine mistake is treated as if they are a serial offender. This is why I feel levying such hefty penalties is inherently unfair.

It just appears that the company are aware that they will not "catch" everyone and so when they do they are not satisfied in just getting their due.
Instead they double the penalty to offset any perceived loss from elsewhere.



If the couple had been charged only the fare that was due, regardless of what the actual fare amount was, then I doubt it would have been particularly newsworthy. I think it's the fact that it was double the amount that grabs the headline as they know that the readership will rise to this. It's not the value of the fare so much as the act of charging double that the public will view as unfair. Had the company only claimed their due I don't think there would have been a piece written on it at all.



Losing £12 may not seem much of a deterrent but I doubt the couple would have been happy to lose it regardless. Moreover they would have seen having to pay the real fare as the punishment. But that's all the company was due, so the extra £12 was gravy.
And if offenders are only being caught twenty percent of the time then the company needs to either improve their practices or accept their losses. What they shouldn't be doing is penalising everyone, including those who make genuine mistakes, in order to make up those losses.

Also, most serial fare evaders will offend over short distances, for low value fares, as this is where they are most likely to get away with it. So to be caught only once in five times means most likely paying only £20 for five trips, making it financially attractive to the fare evader. That's not much of a deterrent either.

 

[bakerstreet]

I hope this doesn't detract from the current debate, but I wonder what the Stagecoach owner would make of this Eastleigh situation if he were caught by similar terms from a different industry he was trying to do business with. It might help put into some context where SWT are coming from:

From ‘Scotland on Sunday’

“Ethics are not irrelevant, but some are incompatible with what we have to do because capitalism is based on greed”

Brian Souter

 

[Username]

So why were they charged a Penalty Fare rather than an Excess Fare?

I'd say for no other reason than the person who stopped them was an authorised collector of penalty fares.

Under the penalty fares scheme is appears that penalty fares are in operation for South West Trains at Eastleigh station. Though not for services operated by First Great Western.

Had the couple been stopped by someone who was not an authorised penalty fares collector then they would have simply been charged for the cost of a new ticket. To my mind, receiving different levels of treatment for the same problem because the member of staff has more 'powers' is a bass-ackward way of doing things. There should be one consistent way of dealing with these types of situation.

 

[Anvil1984]

I agree that it should not be a penalty fare as the ticket is a contravention of section 16 and not one of the penalty fare offences, however if the RPI felt it was an intentional case of fraudulent travel he could have investigated more and MG11'd or at the least TI'd the passenger leading to possible court dates against the passengers involved. If there werent any other factors and they thought it was just a mistake then it would be an excess between the fare paid and the full price undiscounted single between the station involved

Everyone is in the wrong here and I'm concerned that the couple are more concerned about going through compensation instead of the appeals process which should find in their favour. Unless I've missed something

There has been threads on here in the past where passengers have asked about the same scenario and some people have said that "oh it'll be fine, you wont have any problems as xx wont have staff" well this is a reminder that its not and we should be advising any casual visitors to adhere to the NRoCs. As a side these tickets are only offered to Portsmouth and Southampton as a replacement for the Megabus service they lost, so Eastleigh passengers aren't offered them, its like the cheap tickets to London FNW used to offer to Rochdale and Oldham passengers when they lost the direct service

 

[radamfi]

With an Advance ticket, the method of excessing is clear, as there is a physical ticket held. But are there technical or procedural problems with excessing a non-physical ticket such as Megatrain or Chiltern barcode?

 

[yorkie]

Interesting take on it from a blog on the Economist site and some interesting comments:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/09/ticketing_rules

As I say, if we all played by every rule in every rulebook and T&Cs document, we'd never get anything done and we'd turn into a bureaucratic state. It simply looks bad outside of circles that understand the ins and outs of railway ticketing procedures.

Good quote, good find, good blog entry, and the comments are proof of what I have always said, that - whatever the rules - the rules are morally wrong in some cases, the general public are outraged and have every right to be.

I am wondering whether or not to spend the time challenging the waffle posted by HHF, but I see PTF62, Wolfie, and Anvil1984 have already picked up on what I suspected - a PF is not appropriate in this case. The waffle by HHF about being invalid means you are liable to a PF is just that - waffle and has no substance or basis. There are many circumstances where you can be invalid yet not be able to get a PF, I could pick the post by HHF to pieces but I can't be bothered and I really have nothing to add to what the aforementioned trio have already done well Sorry HHF, I do enjoy some of our debates, but penalty fare rules are not as you suggest.

As for the claim by MCR247 that the passengers were 'punished' - is this an admission that PFs are illegal? If a PF is a 'punishment', it's illegal. If a PF is a fine, it's illegal. They are only able to get away with it by claiming it is a fare, and no-one issued one is being accused of any offence. You cannot be punished or fined if you have not been found guilty of an offence.

As for Brian Souter, you can make your own minds up. He doesn't adhere to rules himself. Good quote found by andrewsimms, and shows Souter's true colours. Unlike him, I prefer to help others than amass a personal fortune at others expense. If being greedy makes him happy, that's his problem.

ralphchadkirk - you admit that the 'loss' to SWT is half of what SWT claim, which is a start. However you must, surely, admit that if the train was held at Eastleigh and the couple were able to get back on, they would have remained on board and got a single back? So the loss is surely £3.20. It would be very interesting if this matter went to court as SWT would be trying to justify £57 in damages, but the actual damages would be £3.20, with possibilities of arguing all sorts of figures, such as £20.90 each (£26.90 correct ticket price to Eastleigh if not doubling back to Southampton, minus £6.00 price paid). You have really just plucked one of the figures out and deemed it to be correct but without any basis for doing so. I think MikeWh's argument that the loss is £3.20 is more credible. We do not know what a court would rule, but previous incidents suggest the TOCs are reluctant for us to find out as they do not let similar cases go to court, and where passengers have not paid up the cases dropped (as documented earlier, e.g. with GNER).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There has been threads on here in the past where passengers have asked about the same scenario and some people have said that "oh it'll be fine, you wont have any problems as xx wont have staff" well this is a reminder that its not and we should be advising any casual visitors to adhere to the NRoCs.

I agree, but has that happened? Last time we had a Megatrain topic on ending short it was rather like this one If you can PM me with any threads you see that cause concern I would be grateful

 

[Anvil1984]

I'll have a dig back it wasn't on Megatrain, it was on just Advance tickets in general it'll take me a while I've been on here much longer than my joined date suggests

 

[yorkie]

I don't want to pick out every bit but this from HHF is nonsense," Penalty Fares rules also take precedence over excess fares rules" someone reading that may be led to believe that being off-route or using a time restricted ticket on a train for which that ticket is not valid means you should be given a PF rather than an excess, which simply isn't the case. We've even had experienced RPIs on here confirming that.

I'd say for no other reason than the person who stopped them was an authorised collector of penalty fares.

Under the penalty fares scheme is appears that penalty fares are in operation for South West Trains at Eastleigh station. Though not for services operated by First Great Western.

Had the couple been stopped by someone who was not an authorised penalty fares collector then they would have simply been charged for the cost of a new ticket. To my mind, receiving different levels of treatment for the same problem because the member of staff has more 'powers' is a bass-ackward way of doing things. There should be one consistent way of dealing with these types of situation.

I agree totally, but if it is true that PF collectors are charging PFs inappropriately simply 'because they can' then this is further evidence that PF schemes are misused and should be abandoned.

I've seen a report on FCC that suggests that the PF scheme there is widely misused by staff, and reports on here and PMs from other members in the FCC area, mean that I am in no doubt whatsoever that PF schemes are misused, not monitored well enough, misunderstood by the general public, and are totally inappropriate, unfit for purpose, unfair, and used in a way that makes them quite possibly illegal.

 

[plannerman]

Hmmm... whilst I'm not a bad lad, and have never been pf'd (or anything else for that matter) in my life, two questions occur to me. Firstly - why did the offenders at Eastleigh give their real names? One of the joys of our country is you need carry no id, and the barrier staff can't search your person to find a wallet or other id. Surely just giving false details would sort the problem?
Or secondly - the fine is not a fine at all - as only the police or the courts can issue a fine. As I understand it it's actually an invoice - which can be ignored, assuming you don't mind the risk of being taken to small claims court for it. And I doubt SWT would, as the small amout they would get would be outweighed by the bad publicity.
I appreciate both of the above options break the rules - but they should work, shouldn't they? If you had your 'bad lad's' head on, obviously.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

ralphchadkirk - you admit that the 'loss' to SWT is half of what SWT claim, which is a start. However you must, surely, admit that if the train was held at Eastleigh and the couple were able to get back on, they would have remained on board and got a single back?

It depends on what their intent was. I would say that by leaving the train at Eastleigh immediatly shows that they did not intend to go via Southampton and therefore SWT have been deprived of the Waterloo - Eastleigh ticket.

So the loss is surely £3.20. It would be very interesting if this matter went to court as SWT would be trying to justify £57 in damages, but the actual damages would be £3.20, with possibilities of arguing all sorts of figures, such as £20.90 each (£26.90 correct ticket price to Eastleigh if not doubling back to Southampton, minus £6.00 price paid).

It would be interesting to see this go to court, as SWT can claim any number of things to justify the PF. I think a PF of £114 is extortionate, and that an excess from Southampton to Eastleigh would have been more appropriate, but that does not mean I think the couple were in the right.

You have really just plucked one of the figures out and deemed it to be correct but without any basis for doing so.

I apologise for this, my copy of Avantix is out of date. I've only just noticed. However, going by NRES, £27.70 appears to be the correct price from Waterloo to Eastleigh - off peak single.

I think MikeWh's argument that the loss is £3.20 is more credible. We do not know what a court would rule, but previous incidents suggest the TOCs are reluctant for us to find out as they do not let similar cases go to court, and where passengers have not paid up the cases dropped (as documented earlier, e.g. with GNER).

I think you've answered your own query there. We don't know what a court would say, or whether they would go to court or not.

 

[yorkie]

Hmmm... whilst I'm not a bad lad, and have never been pf'd (or anything else for that matter) in my life,

That almost reads that being issued with a PF is something bad? If you simply lost your ticket, or your friend chucked it out the window, then you'd be eligible for a PF.

two questions occur to me. Firstly - why did the offenders at Eastleigh give their real names?

Offenders? What is the offence?

And to answer the question, if they did not, then they would be committing an offence.

One of the joys of our country is you need carry no id, and the barrier staff can't search your person to find a wallet or other id. Surely just giving false details would sort the problem?

Unfortunately these collectors can ask for your name & address and they can check!

Or secondly - the fine is not a fine at all - as only the police or the courts can issue a fine.

Agreed!

As I understand it it's actually an invoice - which can be ignored, assuming you don't mind the risk of being taken to small claims court for it. And I doubt SWT would, as the small amout they would get would be outweighed by the bad publicity.
I appreciate both of the above options break the rules - but they should work, shouldn't they? If you had your 'bad lad's' head on, obviously.

I agree BUT I am unsure it would go to a small claims court, as far as I can tell the TOCs appear to claim that, because it is a fare that should be paid, refusal to pay it means they can prosecute. I do not agree with this at all, but that appears to be the way it is....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It depends on what their intent was. I would say that by leaving the train at Eastleigh immediatly shows that they did not intend to go via Southampton and therefore SWT have been deprived of the Waterloo - Eastleigh ticket.

So why aren't they appearing in court?

It would be interesting to see this go to court, as SWT can claim any number of things to justify the PF. I think a PF of £114 is extortionate, and that an excess from Southampton to Eastleigh would have been more appropriate, but that does not mean I think the couple were in the right.

You're confusing me now! Are you now saying the difference in fare between the megatrain fare paid (£6) and the fare from Waterloo to Eastleigh (£26ish), ie approx £20 is fair? If so, I am inclined to agree! It would probably have kept the story out of the media, and at the same time acted as enough of a 'deterrent' for people to remain on the train to Southampton next time!

I apologise for this, my copy of Avantix is out of date. I've only just noticed. However, going by NRES, £27.70 appears to be the correct price from Waterloo to Eastleigh - off peak single.

I was using an out of date price too, anyway it's the principle that matters so don't worry about that.

I think you've answered your own query there. We don't know what a court would say, or whether they would go to court or not.

Yes, but the main point wasn't that we don't know, it's that the TOCs don't appear to want it to go to court. In other words, I believe they don't want any risk of a ruling against them.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So why aren't they appearing in court?

SWT or the couple? if you mean SWT, they've already offset the costs!

You're confusing me now! Are you now saying the difference in fare between the megatrain fare paid (£6) and the fare from Waterloo to Eastleigh (£26ish), ie approx £20 is fair? If so, I am inclined to agree! It would probably have kept the story out of the media, and at the same time acted as enough of a 'deterrent' for people to remain on the train to Southampton next time!

Yes, I think the difference would have been far more appropriate.

Yes, but the main point wasn't that we don't know, it's that the TOCs don't appear to want it to go to court. In other words, I believe they don't want any risk of a ruling against them.

With the amount of cases and prosecutions that a TOC must get through, I'm not surprised they don't prosecute unless it's a cast-iron case because it costs them so much to do so.

 

[MikeWh]

With the amount of cases and prosecutions that a TOC must get through, I'm not surprised they don't prosecute unless it's a cast-iron case because it costs them so much to do so.

I'm not sure that the cost of the case is the biggest worry. It's the result of a test-case ruling being made which could have far reaching repercussions to the whole railway industry that will be their biggest concern.

 

[Anvil1984]

but it could have repercussions on the passengers with some tickets like this being withdrawn