Why are Train Tickets NON TRANSFERABLE?

[mralexn]

Ignorantia juris non excusat or put simply (and in English ) ignorance does not excuse you from it. People agreed to the T&Cs and therefore are reasonably expected to have read them, just because people haven't does not excuse them from being liable.

should change the T+Cs on here
You could put anything

 

[ainsworth74]

Where does it clearly say that you cannot buy a ticket for yourself and then sell it to someone else?

The NRCoC makes it quite clear (and you've agreed to by abide by the NRCoC when buying the ticket):

6. You may not transfer a ticket to another person

A ticket may only be used by the person for whom it has been bought. It may not be resold or passed on to anyone else unless this is specifically allowed by the terms and conditions which apply to that ticket and which are set out in the notices and publications of the relevant Train Company.

There is also a link to the byelaws from the NRCoC (from condition 1 (b)) and the byelaws also make it clear that this is not permitted:

21. Unauthorised buying or selling of tickets
(1) Subject to Byelaw 21(4), no person shall sell or buy any ticket.
(2) Subject to Byelaw 21(4), no person shall transfer or receive any unused or partly used ticket, intending that any person shall use it for travelling unless the conditions of use for the ticket specifically permit such transfer.
(3) Subject to Byelaw 21(4), no person shall knowingly use any ticket which has been obtained in breach of Byelaw 21.
(4) The sale or transfer by, or the purchase or receipt from, an authorised person in the course of his duties or from an authorised ticket machine is excepted from the provisions of Byelaw 21.

That seems pretty clear to me.

It's not as simple as that, though, is it?

I'm not quite sure what you mean? Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean you can't be held liable should you violate that condition. In this case it's even more cut and dried as you've agreed to abide by the conditions laid out!

 

[mralexn]

you must travel in the class and reserved seat(s) shown on the ticket(s).

so does this mean if you buy a First Class AP ticket, and sit in Standard class (say with a friend because they only have a STD ticket) your 1st class ticket will be invalid.. ? and a brand new full price standard class ticket would need to be purchased?
What would a RPI do ?

 

[tony_mac]

That seems pretty clear to me.

It was claimed that it was clearly laid out in the text that you read when you buy a ticket.
But it isn't, it's in another document entirely! Ok, you are supposed to have read that one as well, but I'm saying that it isn't as obvious as being presented to you when you buy a ticket - you have to actually go and search for it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean? Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean you can't be held liable should you violate that condition. In this case it's even more cut and dried as you've agreed to abide by the conditions laid out!

I am just saying that 'agreeing' to arbitrary conditions does not automatically make them enforceable - you know, Lord Denning's Red Hand rule etc.
This isn't a comment on this situation - just on the general notion that some people seem to have - 'if it's written somewhere in the terms and conditions then it must be legally binding'.

 

[ainsworth74]

It was claimed that it was clearly laid out in the text that you read when you buy a ticket.
But it isn't, it's in another document entirely! Ok, you are supposed to have read that one as well, but I'm saying that it isn't as obvious as being presented to you when you buy a ticket - you have to actually go and search for it.

Ok, that I can agree with to an extent, it is in a separate document so perhaps not immediately obvious but it's still a document that's clearly linked to (so I reject that you have to go looking for it) and you are told that by buying you are agreeing to all that is laid out within it.

I do wonder if we're wandering off the topic slightly and instead onto the issues of the complexity of railway ticketing more generally

I am just saying that 'agreeing' to arbitrary conditions does not automatically make them enforceable - you know, Lord Denning's Red Hand rule etc.

Actually I didn't know that so thanks for that piece of information

 

[tony_mac]

Ok, that I can agree with to an extent, it is in a separate document so perhaps not immediately obvious but it's still a document that's clearly linked to (so I reject that you have to go looking for it) and you are told that by buying you are agreeing to all that is laid out within it.

Actually, I didn't notice the link to the NRCoC!

There is still an awful lot of rubbish that you are supposed to read every time you buy a train ticket, with some quite important bits buried amongst the nonsense.

I do wonder if we're wandering off the topic slightly and instead onto the issues of the complexity of railway ticketing more generally

yes, probably

 

[island]

you must travel in the class and reserved seat(s) shown on the ticket(s).

so does this mean if you buy a First Class AP ticket, and sit in Standard class (say with a friend because they only have a STD ticket) your 1st class ticket will be invalid.. ? and a brand new full price standard class ticket would need to be purchased?
What would a RPI do ?

Strictly speaking the ticket wouldn't be valid and you would be liable for a new standard Anytime ticket (or penalty fare if applicable). In practice I severely doubt anything would be made of it. Can you imagine what the next day's Daily Fail would look like?

 

[Anon Mouse]

Strictly speaking the ticket wouldn't be valid and you would be liable for a new standard Anytime ticket (or penalty fare if applicable). In practice I severely doubt anything would be made of it. Can you imagine what the next day's Daily Fail would look like?

I would endorse the ticket "passenger travelled std" and the passenger would be able to claim a refund

 

[MidnightFlyer]

MSE has people recommending the resale of Advance tickets, see this thread. Quentin is notorious for giving our poor advice, and Livingthedream isn't much better.

http://forum.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3824339

 

[Anon Mouse]

MSE has people recommending the resale of Advance tickets, see this thread. Quentin is notorious for giving our poor advice, and Livingthedream isn't much better.

http://forum.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3824339

judging by that advice, they too should be reported

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I should have added please report!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

you must travel in the class and reserved seat(s) shown on the ticket(s).

so does this mean if you buy a First Class AP ticket, and sit in Standard class (say with a friend because they only have a STD ticket) your 1st class ticket will be invalid.. ? . . . .

This is a different subject.
It was only last month that Mutant Lemming asked about First Class Ticket Holders Occupying Standard Seats which is probably where your remark belongs. You might even find that your question was answered there!

 

[bb21]

I should have added please report!

Well, some people need to be told as it is.

It never seizes to amaze me the rubbish coming from some people on there.

 

[neilmc]

To be fair, most people on MSE have given either the correct status in law, or said that if you do it discreetly and don't try to use Ebay you should get away with it, which is much the same as is said here. If people post rubbish which could cost you dear if you follow their advice, well that's the internet for you.

I find it disturbing that there's a number of posters here who seem to consider that they constitute some kind of private RPI out to shop anybody they think is doing anything against railway bye-laws, but sadly you get those people all over the internet too.

 

[mralexn]

So if all T+Cs are easy fully legally binding, then
when you sign up for Rail Forums :P there should be something in the T+Cs (that no one reads ) , Along the lines of,

By Agreeing to the terms and conditions you are agreeing to give ALL of the Mods £1,000 in cash Every Week for the rest of your life :P and well,, it would be Legal?

Im sure the Mods would love it if it was

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So if all T+Cs are easy fully legally binding

If they are properly written (I don't want to go into the ins and outs of contract law) then yes.

when you sign up for Rail Forums :P there should be something in the T+Cs (that no one reads ) , Along the lines of,

The terms and conditions are made clear when joining this site, and others. If you just blindly click I agree without reading them then that's your lookout.

By Agreeing to the terms and conditions you are agreeing to give ALL of the Mods £1,000 in cash Every Week for the rest of your life :P and well,, it would be Legal?

Possibly not enforceable. As I said, I don't want to get into the finite detail of contract law.

 

[bb21]

or said that if you do it discreetly and don't try to use Ebay you should get away with it, which is much the same as is said here.

Err, no.

If people post rubbish which could cost you dear if you follow their advice, well that's the internet for you.

If the flip side is not pointed out, how is a newcomer who has more or less no idea how things work going to know whose advice to follow?

 

[yorkie]

To be fair, most people on MSE have given either the correct status in law

Hmm... maybe, but a lot of the 'advice' about railway ticketing matters that is posted there is inaccurate.

or said that if you do it discreetly and don't try to use Ebay you should get away with it, which is much the same as is said here.

Not quite. It's a fine line at times, but the idea that you can use Gumtree instead as they'll let you get away with it is not one I can accept.

If people post rubbish which could cost you dear if you follow their advice, well that's the internet for you.

Well, we can't guarantee the advice here is always accurate but if someone posts something as fact that is not correct, and/or posts advice that could get cost someone dear, then I would urge you to use the report button (

) if you see anything like that. "That's the internet" is a generalisation that means nothing. I could say "that's the newspapers" to justify this abysmally misleading article in the Sun but at the end of the day it's more about the contributors, than the medium itself.

I find it disturbing that there's a number of posters here who seem to consider that they constitute some kind of private RPI out to shop anybody they think is doing anything against railway bye-laws, but sadly you get those people all over the internet too.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'report'; I don't think anyone is talking of reporting in the RPI sense of trying to get people prosecuted, if that's what you think?

But reporting to the website concerned is definitely the best thing to do, and I am sure that is what people are suggesting. This gives the website owners the opportunity to remove the inappropriate content. If there's some dodgy advice on this forum, we want to know about it, and if it's not reported to us, we may miss it. I am sure the same principle applies elsewhere.

 

[neilmc]

It's been said several times, for example when I raised the issue of staff on a company internal website advertising business tickets that they can no longer use, or people doing informal deals amongst friends and relatives, that this is TECHNICALLY a breach of the conditions BUT the rail industry is not concerned about this, however they would be if there was a huge market in train tickets on a site like Ebay.

You can go several ways on this.

You can point out the railway bye-laws which less than 1% of the population will be aware of and declare that they must never ever be broken or you render yourself liable to prosecution and a criminal record as well as being a Very Bad Person.

Alternatively you can say that the rail industry is a mighty scam anyway and whatever you can get back from them by any means, legal or otherwise, is fair dos.

Or you can say that there are practices which whilst not considered fraudulent by reasonable people in the sense that all journeys taken have been paid for by somebody, but are technically not allowed and you therefore take a measured view on the extent to which you participate and the likelihood of action. For example, buying an unused ticket from a mate at work is a whole different ball game from buying one from a stranger at a station barrier with RPIs watching although there is surely no difference in law. There's TECHNICALLY and then there's PRACTICALLY - take advice, some of which may be flawed, and choose where you stand, but remember that the law is a right mess and is biased towards the TOCs.

MSE is very good for highlighting a few basic ways of legally cutting costs, notably split ticketing, and gives a warning about dodgy ones such as short travelling whereas this forum is definitely geeky with a lot of the discussion based on obscure easements and suchlike - fun, but not what your average passenger is looking for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry, I hadn't read Yorkie's post and what he says is quite reasonable.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I would look very dimly on a site that encouraged members to break the law in order to save money. I am glad the administrators on here take the sensible line. A respectable site cannot be seen to condone law-breaking, whether or not you consider it "correct" or not.

If the practical method is illegal then don't do it, or risk the consequences.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree!

The standard of moderation on here is high and any unwise or foolish advice is rapidly corrected.

That doesn't for a moment deny any one the opportunity to criticise the industry for any of its failings, and there certainly are areas where the industry could do more to help itself and help its public perception. Keeping the clear distinction between accurate advice and critical comment helps to make an informed and balanced debate.

 

[yorkie]

MSE is very good for highlighting a few basic ways of legally cutting costs, notably split ticketing, and gives a warning about dodgy ones such as short travelling whereas this forum is definitely geeky with a lot of the discussion based on obscure easements and suchlike - fun, but not what your average passenger is looking for.

Not sure I agree. The average passenger will be more likely to get accurate advice here, and I think that is what most people are looking for.

In some cases the rules, conditions and legal issues may not be crystal clear, and may be open to interpretation, there may be doubts about the meanings of some terms. But if that is the case we'll say so, this may come across as "geeky" but it is better than saying "Yes, you'll get away with that" when it's perhaps not entirely legitimate.

Sorry, I hadn't read Yorkie's post and what he says is quite reasonable.

No problem
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The standard of moderation on here is high and any unwise or foolish advice is rapidly corrected.

Thanks. But I must pass on my thanks to all the people who report posts using the report button, we don't thank people or respond individually due to time constraints, but they are always appreciated. And to go back to what was said earlier, in case anyone is any doubt, a report does not necessarily mean someone is going to get into trouble; it's more important to keep people out of trouble as the person making the post may simply need some guidance. If we act promptly (which we can only do if it's reported) then the removal of the post can occur before someone sees it who may want to take it further, and before people take the misguided advice.

 

[Darandio]

I have noticed a marked increase in this recently to be honest, sometimes there are two or three new ones every night.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mancheste...ollectables_Railwayana_RL&hash=item3372aa67b7

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300672872875

 

[bb21]

however they would be if there was a huge market in train tickets on a site like Ebay.

Isn't this what was suggested on MSE?

You can point out the railway bye-laws which less than 1% of the population will be aware of and declare that they must never ever be broken or you render yourself liable to prosecution and a criminal record as well as being a Very Bad Person.

We have seen plenty of cases on here where someone unintentionally breaks the Railway Byelaw and yet still has to live with the consequences. No one is trying to make out that he/she is a bad person, however the excuse that it is only something that 1% of the population is aware of is unlikely to be accepted in a court of law.

Alternatively you can say that the rail industry is a mighty scam anyway and whatever you can get back from them by any means, legal or otherwise, is fair dos.

How is this relevant? There are plenty of organisations many on here believe to be wrong and immoral. Does that give us the right to get back at them while breaking the law in the process?

Or you can say that there are practices which whilst not considered fraudulent by reasonable people in the sense that all journeys taken have been paid for by somebody, but are technically not allowed and you therefore take a measured view on the extent to which you participate and the likelihood of action. For example, buying an unused ticket from a mate at work is a whole different ball game from buying one from a stranger at a station barrier with RPIs watching although there is surely no difference in law. There's TECHNICALLY and then there's PRACTICALLY - take advice, some of which may be flawed, and choose where you stand, but remember that the law is a right mess and is biased towards the TOCs.

The law is a mess, but that is not an excuse. There are two things being considered here, as you have rightly pointed out. Some practice such as passing an unused ticket onto someone in the private is unlikely to be of concern to the railway companies, partly because parts of the law are more or less unenforceable in such circumstances. There are also other ones such as selling them in the public which can be traced and actioned on should the relevant authorities wish to pursue such matters. It is irresponsible for someone offering advice to suggest what could potentially land an innocent stranger in hot water, while dismissing correct information provided by others. By all means mention these possibilities, however they need to be presented in a fair and unbiased manner with pros and cons clearly laid out so that the person seeking advice can make an informed decision. This was not the case with some posters on MSE.

MSE is very good for highlighting a few basic ways of legally cutting costs, notably split ticketing, and gives a warning about dodgy ones such as short travelling whereas this forum is definitely geeky with a lot of the discussion based on obscure easements and suchlike - fun, but not what your average passenger is looking for.

Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with suggestions that are legal, unfortunately this was not the case in the linked example.

 

[yorkie]

I have noticed a marked increase in this recently to be honest, sometimes there are two or three new ones every night.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mancheste...ollectables_Railwayana_RL&hash=item3372aa67b7

Well, that person has spent over £50 per person for a return journey, and can't get anything back. Quite frankly I'd not pay that price for Advance tickets when I could get walk-up tickets for not a great deal more. The person buying the tickets could easily be done for it, as the seat reservations are clearly visible. Questions such as "How did you pay for these tickets?" "Where did you buy these tickets?" may not be easy for them to answer.

 

[lyesbkz]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300672872875

Is this person selling reservations only, I wonder

 

[shinkansen1966]

The main reason I am bringing this up, is because every single time i go to London and get a Travel card for the Underground, when I am done with it, (normally by around 7pm at the latest) I give it to someone I see queuing up for one, As a Good will gesture kinda thing ,

As I understand it, a London Travelcard is the property of Transport for London. It's not yours to sell on.

 

[Wyvern]

(2) Subject to Byelaw 21(4), no person shall transfer or receive any unused or partly used ticket, intending that any person shall use it for travelling unless the conditions of use for the ticket specifically permit such transfer.

I dont have a copy of Byelaw 21(4) . What does it say?

Taking this to the extreme, how about a parent buying a ticket for their child?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I dont have a copy of Byelaw 21(4) . What does it say?

Its already quoted here in post #18 of this discussion.

For general reference, the Byelaws in full can be downloaded from the DfT website here : Railway Byelaws.

 

[yorkie]

Taking this to the extreme, how about a parent buying a ticket for their child?

Anyone can buy a ticket for anyone. That is not considered transferring a ticket.

Someone can buy tickets for anyone, and any number of people (subject to limits, such as e.g. East Coast 9 persons per booking, x bookings per transaction, 4(?) transactions per day, and so on....), in which case the purchasers name may be printed on a lot of tickets, but that means nothing other than who bought the tickets.

(the above was a response to a concern about names being printed on tickets when booked online)