Couple fined £114 for leaving train too early (From Daily Echo)

A spokesman for Stagecoach, which runs South West Trains, said: “Conditions were clear for off-peak budget deals. Leaving a train early is not allowed on heavily discounted tickets. The fine is double the standard single fare.”
-
Firstly, I have never heard, or read, such utter codswallop. Leaving a train early is against regulations? What a bunch of cr4p. I have left trains before the designated station a hundred times and haven't ever heard of 'conditions being clear for off peak deals' or been subjected to fines or to idiots who could've let this go.
-
Secondly, this spokesman should Get A Life. Total jobsworth ar5e.
You need to get out more mate.

I thought that there was a campaign to attract people back to letting the train take the strain.

I think the railways are taking something else!

All this discussed in detail on the Jeremy Vine show earlier today.

Ridiculous, but that's privatisation for you: railways run by bean counters and lawyers instead of by railway men, with far more government subsidies (mostly directly into shareholders' pockets) then ever happened with British Rail.

The "National Rail Conditions of Carriage" (Google it for a pdf) state that on a regular train ticket commuters can start, break or end a journey at intermediate stations.

However, It also clearly states that on some tickets - for example a ticket that allows the commuter to travel on the London Underground - you are NOT allowed to break \ resume your journey and if you do you may be fined.

I'm guessing this couple falls into the latter. While I would agree it seems a bit excessive the ticket inspector is simply applying the rules which the passengers should have been aware of, no point feigning surprise because of ignorance.

I'm not really sure what "Passenger Focus" are talking about either, the rules seem pretty clear to me?

I use Mega Train from time to time and I buy the heavily discounted tickets knowing that the cheap fares are on the proviso that one ( in this case ) travels from London Waterloo to Southampton Central. These are the rules and if you get off early you take your chance. No good moaning about it when the ticket collector catches you out!

I use Mega Train from time to time and I buy the heavily discounted tickets knowing that the cheap fares are on the proviso that one ( in this case ) travels from London Waterloo to Southampton Central. These are the rules and if you get off early you take your chance. No good moaning about it when the ticket collector catches you out!

Mr BCB wrote:
I use Mega Train from time to time and I buy the heavily discounted tickets knowing that the cheap fares are on the proviso that one ( in this case ) travels from London Waterloo to Southampton Central. These are the rules and if you get off early you take your chance. No good moaning about it when the ticket collector catches you out!

Were you made aware of this proviso or did you have to look it up please?
I'm not doubting your word but I've never heard of this.

Now we know who had the missing paper from De La Rue.. Stagecoach so they can print there own.

They should not paid and not left the station and got on the next train to southampton.
I have read the Conditions and there nothing to say that you cannot do this.

It says when you order the tickets that you have to stay on the train for the whole journey. It is strange, but it is clearly stated as one of the conditions so I don't see how they can feel hard done by.

Next time they will know to get off at the airport and then walk back.

I honestly don't see a problem with people getting off early. You are essentially just paying the same amount for using less of the service. If SWT want to encourage more people to commute via train, then they really need to buck their ideas up!

what a load of old tosh the railway companys are very strange indead i will carry on the same as i did before and drive my car instead ....................
.....

It may be a condition, but what a stupid condition! I can understand you having to go from and to a certain station on the outward part of your Megatrain journey (eg to London Waterloo from Southampton Central rather than the busy & small commuter station Soton Parkway) but people getting off a train early on their way home actually frees up seats for people getting on so that's an advantage to the railway companies, especially when almost all seats are taken (like the train we travelled on on Sunday, of all days when we thought it'd be quiet)!. Total madness! Perhaps they should get rid of so called cheap tickets & just charge one peak and one off-peak fare and save the money from all the extra admin/policing of all these stupid options! Bring back one nationalised railway system - much simpler and less costly/stressful to the nation and individuals! And they want us to use public transport???!!! Perhaps the answer here would've been to buy additional single-fare tickets from Winchester to Eastleigh & produce just those on getting off the train! Work the system when it's so appalling!!

Fred_In_Brizzle wrote:
The "National Rail Conditions of Carriage" (Google it for a pdf) state that on a regular train ticket commuters can start, break or end a journey at intermediate stations.

However, It also clearly states that on some tickets - for example a ticket that allows the commuter to travel on the London Underground - you are NOT allowed to break \ resume your journey and if you do you may be fined.

I'm guessing this couple falls into the latter. While I would agree it seems a bit excessive the ticket inspector is simply applying the rules which the passengers should have been aware of, no point feigning surprise because of ignorance.

I'm not really sure what "Passenger Focus" are talking about either, the rules seem pretty clear to me?

I'm pretty sure ignorance would lead to genuine, not feigned, surprise

Its views like some of you that lead companies to stop offering such cheap tickets. If they wanted to travel from Eastleigh then they should buy a ticket from Eastleigh, costing £30-odd..... ahhhh But they want to try and cheat the system.

I forget, a headline of "Couple agreed to T&Cs they did not read and got caught" just does not have the same ring to it....

I take it that Emma and Davyd would also sign up for a Credit Card and then claim outrage when they get charged interest......

jobsworth P***s.....

should be sacked for implementing a clearly pathetic and stupid policy invented by some goon-product of the last labour shambles.

I would suggest these people get a lawyer and enforce their civil liberties.

Stagecoaches attempt to enforce "train-imprisonment" is clearly against the law....

they should go for it and stuff them in the court...

Sorry It clearly states you have to go to Southampton to get the cheap fare
so tough pay up.
you did not have a valid ticket to eastleigh this would of cost you more money and you knew that
this must be good sport for ticket collectors

Whitters wrote:
Its views like some of you that lead companies to stop offering such cheap tickets. If they wanted to travel from Eastleigh then they should buy a ticket from Eastleigh, costing £30-odd..... ahhhh But they want to try and cheat the system.

I forget, a headline of "Couple agreed to T&Cs they did not read and got caught" just does not have the same ring to it....

I take it that Emma and Davyd would also sign up for a Credit Card and then claim outrage when they get charged interest......

Come off it. It's hardly cheating the system. It's perfectly reasonable to think that a shorter journey is cheaper than a longer one on the same route.

I presume you can recite the T's & C's of every single agreement you've ever entered into? I presume, for instance, that you're aware of sub-section 3 of clause 12 of the terms and conditions you agreed to when posting your comment? Because unless you know this couple personally, and know their intent when buying the ticket, then your judgement of their behaviour is unjustified, and your predictions about their credit card usage is pure conjecture. Contrary to those terms and conditions you agreed to.

Or perhaps they made a mistake in good faith, and you too simply assumed you were allowed to defame people on this website. You're all three of you, only human, after all.

Sorry to spoil it for all the 'Bring back British Railways' people but:
Under the Old British Railways Board Bye Laws, Bye Law No 5 made it an offence to purchase a cheaper ticket for a longer journey with the intention of travelling to an intermediate station.
I found this an Old copy of Stones Justices Manual that I have lying around, the old Bye Laws have been replaced now.
So it used to be Illegal, where an actual fine could be imposed in a Court. Is that really what people want to return?
Despite what the Echo says this is NOT A FINE, it is a Penalty fare.

X Old Bill wrote:
Sorry to spoil it for all the 'Bring back British Railways' people but:
Under the Old British Railways Board Bye Laws, Bye Law No 5 made it an offence to purchase a cheaper ticket for a longer journey with the intention of travelling to an intermediate station.
I found this an Old copy of Stones Justices Manual that I have lying around, the old Bye Laws have been replaced now.
So it used to be Illegal, where an actual fine could be imposed in a Court. Is that really what people want to return?
Despite what the Echo says this is NOT A FINE, it is a Penalty fare.

What's the legal standpoint if one refuses to pay, since it's not a fine, and not enforceable? Presumably, SWT are entitled to ban you from their services, but equally presumably this would of course infringe on your human rights blah blah. Curious.

curious as to what happens if you feel ill whilst travelling do you have to stay on train

We will see I bet it will cost Emma more that £57 to contest the fine
no valid ticket for the trip
T&c very clear its a no win

Georgem wrote:

X Old Bill wrote:
Sorry to spoil it for all the 'Bring back British Railways' people but:
Under the Old British Railways Board Bye Laws, Bye Law No 5 made it an offence to purchase a cheaper ticket for a longer journey with the intention of travelling to an intermediate station.
I found this an Old copy of Stones Justices Manual that I have lying around, the old Bye Laws have been replaced now.
So it used to be Illegal, where an actual fine could be imposed in a Court. Is that really what people want to return?
Despite what the Echo says this is NOT A FINE, it is a Penalty fare.

What's the legal standpoint if one refuses to pay, since it's not a fine, and not enforceable? Presumably, SWT are entitled to ban you from their services, but equally presumably this would of course infringe on your human rights blah blah. Curious.

Off the cuff I would say that it is a civil debt and recoverable in a County Court.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have read. at least they had a valid ticket. not like some people who fare dodge and get away with it, this is how they make their money.

There's a write-up in the current Private Eye about confusing ticket sales at station machines. Shame this was from a website where T&Cs could be at least skimmed, they'd have more chance if it wasn't!

northam1972 wrote:
That is the most ridiculous thing I have read. at least they had a valid ticket. not like some people who fare dodge and get away with it, this is how they make their money.

You miss the point. The only reason they were charged a penalty fare was the did NOT have a valid ticket.

Wow, everyone's jumping in to defend the £130m plc.

RadicalEmu wrote:
Wow, everyone's jumping in to defend the £130m plc.

I didn't realise corporation tax was now paid in "being automatically wrong" tokens, as well as sterling.

This is absolutely typical of the behaviour of South West Trains whose revenue protection staff are becoming more intransigent by the moment. Not happy with falsely imprisoning people who turn up with bikes and refusing point blank to let them through the barrier, they are extorting money with menaces for something which any normal person with some sort of heart would have overlooked. And we all know that there are at least three or four other stations from which they could have made an early departure which are not covered by any staff. The truth is that there are certain stations they decide are hot spots while little stations are totally unstaffed and unmanned. The behaviour of some of their staff is little short of outrageous and I keep hoping and praying that these people lose their franchise and these staff lose their jobs pretty quickly. Someone ought to take legal action against this company and the sooner the better.

What a laugh. Reading pro and contra arguments. Please, please tell me how it can make sense to fine or force a penalty fare on someone for getting off BEFORE the end of the journey! It is lacking so much sense it is almost unbelievable....only in England...really!!!

Andy_Germany wrote:
What a laugh. Reading pro and contra arguments. Please, please tell me how it can make sense to fine or force a penalty fare on someone for getting off BEFORE the end of the journey! It is lacking so much sense it is almost unbelievable....only in England...really!!!

Absolutely right. This demonstrates everything that is ludicrous about this country. Sure, fine fare dodgers or those who outride their ticket but people who get off early?Totally bonkers.Esther Rantzen,bring back That's Life!!

it all boils down to whether or not you are a jobsworth bot or not.... anyone with any self respect who worked for that stupid railway would not have fined these people. people who support this are the sort who become traffic wardens and wait for 15 minutes by a car they think will tick over by 1 minute as the pregnent mum rushes back to her car.... real sado weeds with no life.

no one will play by the rules £6 soton london, london soton is a real bargin,
if you break the rules pay up. parking if you get back late pay up if you pay for 60 mins parking why should you get more ?

MGRA wrote:
it all boils down to whether or not you are a jobsworth bot or not.... anyone with any self respect who worked for that stupid railway would not have fined these people. people who support this are the sort who become traffic wardens and wait for 15 minutes by a car they think will tick over by 1 minute as the pregnent mum rushes back to her car.... real sado weeds with no life.

You have not heard the funniest bit; the company would not have backed that employee anyway if it had come to a legal challenge and would have probably sacked him. Thats how twisted its all become on that railway.

It may well be that the couple took advantage of a cheap deal but to be honest, most people would presume that you could disembark at an earlier station. How many people read t+c's? I feel that sw trains should have pointed the conditions out so that they are aware but let them off with a warning that they must not use the cheap fares unless they are going to southampton. After all, it doesn't cost sw trains more for them to stay on the train.

sry i think you are wrong we will see. railway byelaws still exist and they do inforce these rules time will tell

solomum wrote:
It may well be that the couple took advantage of a cheap deal but to be honest, most people would presume that you could disembark at an earlier station. How many people read t+c's? I feel that sw trains should have pointed the conditions out so that they are aware but let them off with a warning that they must not use the cheap fares unless they are going to southampton. After all, it doesn't cost sw trains more for them to stay on the train.

The plain and simple fact of the matter was that here was a member of the revenue protection staff who wanted to get another couple of notches in his or her penalty fare book and could not wait to complete the relevant paperwork.

They are probably grimacing right at this very moment that they could not have gone further and reported the couple for prosecution.

I doubt whether even the penalty fare was valid; all they did was underrode on their ticket. Anyone with half a brain would have popped them on the next service to complete their journey.

Bowmore wrote:

northam1972 wrote: That is the most ridiculous thing I have read. at least they had a valid ticket. not like some people who fare dodge and get away with it, this is how they make their money.

You miss the point. The only reason they were charged a penalty fare was the did NOT have a valid ticket.

No they did have valid tickets; they just were not made aware of the exclusion clauses concerning the type of tickets they had. Read what Denning has to say about this in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking before you jump to conclusions.

Trying to get head around this. Would the train have to make a detour to Eastleigh which would incurr extra costs for train company or would the train always have to stop there on the way back? Trying to see how by breaking this T&C the company financially looses out? Is this same rule in place for bus companies?

AD74 wrote:
Trying to get head around this. Would the train have to make a detour to Eastleigh which would incurr extra costs for train company or would the train always have to stop there on the way back? Trying to see how by breaking this T&C the company financially looses out? Is this same rule in place for bus companies?

One of my many arguments about this is that they could have got off a Swaythling or Parkway and purchased a single back to Eastleigh. Therefore the Inspectors would not have known any difference. Their tickets purchased from that station would also not have been a breach of any terms and conditions as it would have been a fresh contract. Why South West Trains could not have worked that out for themselves, goodness only knows. The good thing about it of course is that the person who wrote out those penalty fares has probably been sacked by now in the rush to disown the poor chap or chapess.

Next they will be chasing you down with a pack of dogs and taking you to the TOWER for execution at dawn. If you decide not to use the return ticket at all.

gort wrote:
no one will play by the rules £6 soton london, london soton is a real bargin,
if you break the rules pay up. parking if you get back late pay up if you pay for 60 mins parking why should you get more ?

Terrible analogy. This is like they paid for 60 minutes, but are getting fined for not staying the full hour. I don't think it's unreasonable to think NOT using the full purchase is ok. It's violated some obscure T & C, sure, but it's not like they're trying to get something for nothing.

AD74 wrote:
Trying to get head around this. Would the train have to make a detour to Eastleigh which would incurr extra costs for train company or would the train always have to stop there on the way back? Trying to see how by breaking this T&C the company financially looses out? Is this same rule in place for bus companies?

There is no loss for them. 20 space-dollars says the inspector is target-driven and has to issue a certain number of penalties a month.

When we were travelling home from London the other day there was a young person on the train who had a discounted ticket. Even though the train was not full the ticket collector made her get off the train at the next station so that she could reboard another one which she was allowed to travel on. Are people made aware of the terms and conditions of these discounted tickets when they buy them or are they trying to defraud the railway company? If the train is not full what difference does it make if that person is on the 'wrong' train?

Enforcing something under contractual law, not wrong! I hope I run a red light at 80 miles an hour, cause a huge crash, and the copper says, don't worry i'm not a jobsworth, off you go pal, have a nice day. Just because someone thinks it's morally wrong to enforce a fine, doesn't stop it being a fine.

To everyone angered by the attitude of South West Trains in particular - the Department for Transport are currently in a public consultation phase for the franchise process. All the complaints being posted here should be reiterated where they might have some influence - here -> http://www.dft.gov.u
k/consultations/open
/2010-28/
As a regular traveller with both Southern and SWT there is a difference in attitude towards passengers from different companies. SWT are a disgrace and if I have a long list of personal experiences of poor service I hate to think what SWT's total performance must be like. It's not just about running to time! There is also the South Hants Rail User Group (SHRUG) who try and keep tabs on SWT's poor performance. Use these resources - I for one will be very happy to see Stagecoach kicked off this franchise at the next round.

thesotonsaint wrote:
Enforcing something under contractual law, not wrong! I hope I run a red light at 80 miles an hour, cause a huge crash, and the copper says, don't worry i'm not a jobsworth, off you go pal, have a nice day. Just because someone thinks it's morally wrong to enforce a fine, doesn't stop it being a fine.

Bang on. Causing a "huge crash" with, I assume, fatalities and major injuries to a number of innocent people is very similalr to getting off a train a few stops early. Great analogy.

Georgem wrote:

RadicalEmu wrote:
Wow, everyone's jumping in to defend the £130m plc.

I didn't realise corporation tax was now paid in "being automatically wrong" tokens, as well as sterling.

Where did I say they were wrong, or should be 'automatically wrong'?
.
It's more a social comment.

The penalty should stand - this couple bought the cheapo ticket which states Southampton as destination. The Rail service ALLOCATES space on this particular train on this basis (ok, this could be standing) . The couple get off early ( I've no real complaint with this, if that's all the couple really intended to do) BUT.... now consider the train service perspective. If the couple RESUME their journey to Southampton, they (potentially) screw things up at the capacity level - that's why the tickets are cheap! They account for passenger capacity at a specific time. The railco has to police this from happening and so the couple were caught out. Bad luck.

spotburst wrote:
The penalty should stand - this couple bought the cheapo ticket which states Southampton as destination. The Rail service ALLOCATES space on this particular train on this basis (ok, this could be standing) . The couple get off early ( I've no real complaint with this, if that's all the couple really intended to do) BUT.... now consider the train service perspective. If the couple RESUME their journey to Southampton, they (potentially) screw things up at the capacity level - that's why the tickets are cheap! They account for passenger capacity at a specific time. The railco has to police this from happening and so the couple were caught out. Bad luck.

You are missing the point that this franchise is one of the most appalling ones in the whole of the United Kingdom and is the subject of a series of bullying and harassing incidents on passengers and a reputation for sacking staff and making them redundant for no reason. You need to look at this topic in the round and not be so rule-bound. History is littered with stories of individuals, corporations and nations being rule bound with tragic results. South West Trains is not a military organisation which can terrorise passsengers into submission with officious staff and it needs to remember that. I believe that this organisation should be brought to book and that it should lose it franchise. This is not an organisation that should be backed up by giving it air time by how it is doing right. It is not doing right and this latest thing is just one of a whole series of incidents in which it has proved to be a vicious, wilful and petty spirited organisation. Any right minded individiual would want to consign SWT to the dustbin of history. To say that they are doing right is to demean our democracy. This company is by no means doing the right thing and its dubious that it ever will do.

Donald2000 wrote:

spotburst wrote:
The penalty should stand - this couple bought the cheapo ticket which states Southampton as destination. The Rail service ALLOCATES space on this particular train on this basis (ok, this could be standing) . The couple get off early ( I've no real complaint with this, if that's all the couple really intended to do) BUT.... now consider the train service perspective. If the couple RESUME their journey to Southampton, they (potentially) screw things up at the capacity level - that's why the tickets are cheap! They account for passenger capacity at a specific time. The railco has to police this from happening and so the couple were caught out. Bad luck.

You are missing the point that this franchise is one of the most appalling ones in the whole of the United Kingdom and is the subject of a series of bullying and harassing incidents on passengers and a reputation for sacking staff and making them redundant for no reason. You need to look at this topic in the round and not be so rule-bound. History is littered with stories of individuals, corporations and nations being rule bound with tragic results. South West Trains is not a military organisation which can terrorise passsengers into submission with officious staff and it needs to remember that. I believe that this organisation should be brought to book and that it should lose it franchise. This is not an organisation that should be backed up by giving it air time by how it is doing right. It is not doing right and this latest thing is just one of a whole series of incidents in which it has proved to be a vicious, wilful and petty spirited organisation. Any right minded individiual would want to consign SWT to the dustbin of history. To say that they are doing right is to demean our democracy. This company is by no means doing the right thing and its dubious that it ever will do.

And what would you say if there was no room on the train when you got on at Eastleigh on this occaision? ... I thought so. In this situation you must admit the rail service can ONLY be seen as the bad guys. I of course acknowledge some of your other criticisms - i.e bullying and general attitude to passengers, but this is simply a case of bad luck/ got caught.

RadicalEmu wrote:

Georgem wrote:

RadicalEmu wrote:
Wow, everyone's jumping in to defend the £130m plc.

I didn't realise corporation tax was now paid in "being automatically wrong" tokens, as well as sterling.

Where did I say they were wrong, or should be 'automatically wrong'?
.
It's more a social comment.

On what, exactly? Is there some reason a corporation worth £130m should not be defended?

spotburst wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

spotburst wrote: The penalty should stand - this couple bought the cheapo ticket which states Southampton as destination. The Rail service ALLOCATES space on this particular train on this basis (ok, this could be standing) . The couple get off early ( I've no real complaint with this, if that's all the couple really intended to do) BUT.... now consider the train service perspective. If the couple RESUME their journey to Southampton, they (potentially) screw things up at the capacity level - that's why the tickets are cheap! They account for passenger capacity at a specific time. The railco has to police this from happening and so the couple were caught out. Bad luck.

You are missing the point that this franchise is one of the most appalling ones in the whole of the United Kingdom and is the subject of a series of bullying and harassing incidents on passengers and a reputation for sacking staff and making them redundant for no reason. You need to look at this topic in the round and not be so rule-bound. History is littered with stories of individuals, corporations and nations being rule bound with tragic results. South West Trains is not a military organisation which can terrorise passsengers into submission with officious staff and it needs to remember that. I believe that this organisation should be brought to book and that it should lose it franchise. This is not an organisation that should be backed up by giving it air time by how it is doing right. It is not doing right and this latest thing is just one of a whole series of incidents in which it has proved to be a vicious, wilful and petty spirited organisation. Any right minded individiual would want to consign SWT to the dustbin of history. To say that they are doing right is to demean our democracy. This company is by no means doing the right thing and its dubious that it ever will do.

And what would you say if there was no room on the train when you got on at Eastleigh on this occaision? ... I thought so. In this situation you must admit the rail service can ONLY be seen as the bad guys. I of course acknowledge some of your other criticisms - i.e bullying and general attitude to passengers, but this is simply a case of bad luck/ got caught.

I dont get on the train at Eastleigh; I use Blue Star 2 from Eastleigh to Southampton when I have the need and I honestly would advise others to do the same. You also miss the point that the company wont back this particular inspector because of the publicity generated by the case and its more than likely he or she will lose his or her job. Trust me, I talk from very real experience here.

fao Spotburst - ATOC of which SWT is a major component - supports and is committed to automatic barriers which are programmed to open only if the ticket is valid and in this case did not open so the couple could not leave the station. This was poor programming. I think Barrie Doe will have some good points to make on this when I tell him! Your point is valid at stations such as Woking or Basingstoke where (in theory) somebody could leave their train and cross to a platform to catch a faster train that overtook their own - but in that case the on board ticket inspector would be the one who would determine that conditions had been broken. In this case I suspect the automatic barriers failed to allow egress from the station and the barrier inspector took an officious and totally unnecessary action as the couple were leaving the station and could not return even if they wanted to. I agree wih Donald - this serves as an illustration of completely innapropriate and counterproductive use of petty and overcomplex ticket rules coupled with the failure to program automatic barriers to allow exit in this circumstance.

spotburst wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

spotburst wrote:
The penalty should stand - this couple bought the cheapo ticket which states Southampton as destination. The Rail service ALLOCATES space on this particular train on this basis (ok, this could be standing) . The couple get off early ( I've no real complaint with this, if that's all the couple really intended to do) BUT.... now consider the train service perspective. If the couple RESUME their journey to Southampton, they (potentially) screw things up at the capacity level - that's why the tickets are cheap! They account for passenger capacity at a specific time. The railco has to police this from happening and so the couple were caught out. Bad luck.

You are missing the point that this franchise is one of the most appalling ones in the whole of the United Kingdom and is the subject of a series of bullying and harassing incidents on passengers and a reputation for sacking staff and making them redundant for no reason. You need to look at this topic in the round and not be so rule-bound. History is littered with stories of individuals, corporations and nations being rule bound with tragic results. South West Trains is not a military organisation which can terrorise passsengers into submission with officious staff and it needs to remember that. I believe that this organisation should be brought to book and that it should lose it franchise. This is not an organisation that should be backed up by giving it air time by how it is doing right. It is not doing right and this latest thing is just one of a whole series of incidents in which it has proved to be a vicious, wilful and petty spirited organisation. Any right minded individiual would want to consign SWT to the dustbin of history. To say that they are doing right is to demean our democracy. This company is by no means doing the right thing and its dubious that it ever will do.

And what would you say if there was no room on the train when you got on at Eastleigh on this occaision? ... I thought so. In this situation you must admit the rail service can ONLY be seen as the bad guys. I of course acknowledge some of your other criticisms - i.e bullying and general attitude to passengers, but this is simply a case of bad luck/ got caught.

How would 2 people getting off cause there to be less room on the train?

You must appreciate that SWT consider that every passenger is a potential criminal, until they become a customer, I guess this applies to most train operating companies, ticketing is extremely confusing and most companies would prefer that you bought your travel on the Internet, or through a ticket machine, thus ridding themselves of cumbersome ticket offices and staff.
It would be better if ticketing was simpler and handled by one universal authority, and tickets available for travel on every companies trains. This has nothing to do with the Labour Government, except that they did nothing to change the damage done by the Conservatives just before they were ousted.

There are currently no automatic barriers at Eastleigh, and these people must have been extremely unlucky on the day that they travelled, I travel regularly through the area and it quite a while since I have seen revenue protection staff at this station or on the trains, quite often the train guard walks through the train, and most of them are very friendly and helpful, but are up to most of the tricks and dodges from those that are deliberately trying to avoid paying, and believe me there are plenty of passengers who want to avoid being customers. These are the ones to blame in this instance, not the company, who must lose thousands of pounds every year from people who don't consider themselves to be common thieves, (which they are) but seem to think it clever to get away without paying.

Victorian Principles wrote:

RadicalEmu wrote:

Georgem wrote:

RadicalEmu wrote:
Wow, everyone's jumping in to defend the £130m plc.

I didn't realise corporation tax was now paid in "being automatically wrong" tokens, as well as sterling.

Where did I say they were wrong, or should be 'automatically wrong'?
.
It's more a social comment.

On what, exactly? Is there some reason a corporation worth £130m should not be defended?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be defended in this case, but the sheer amount of defence is odd to me, I'm just generally amazed how much we worship brands/companies in this country, in general.
.
I've read that when "super off-peak" tickets arrived in 2007, off-peak fares went up by 20 percent (source: Private Eye). That, to me, gives a reason to not defend them.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
There are currently no automatic barriers at Eastleigh, and these people must have been extremely unlucky on the day that they travelled, I travel regularly through the area and it quite a while since I have seen revenue protection staff at this station or on the trains, quite often the train guard walks through the train, and most of them are very friendly and helpful, but are up to most of the tricks and dodges from those that are deliberately trying to avoid paying, and believe me there are plenty of passengers who want to avoid being customers. These are the ones to blame in this instance, not the company, who must lose thousands of pounds every year from people who don't consider themselves to be common thieves, (which they are) but seem to think it clever to get away without paying.

Your analogy is not correct. These persons did pay a fare, so they are not thieves. Not paying the correct amount (of which they were totally unaware and the train company did not inform them) is not theft. Nor did they deliberately refrain from paying. They were paying passengers. What happened was that they were not aware of the exclusion clause preventing them from exiting the service two stations early. Its a contractual, rather than criminal matter.

Donald2000 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
There are currently no automatic barriers at Eastleigh, and these people must have been extremely unlucky on the day that they travelled, I travel regularly through the area and it quite a while since I have seen revenue protection staff at this station or on the trains, quite often the train guard walks through the train, and most of them are very friendly and helpful, but are up to most of the tricks and dodges from those that are deliberately trying to avoid paying, and believe me there are plenty of passengers who want to avoid being customers. These are the ones to blame in this instance, not the company, who must lose thousands of pounds every year from people who don't consider themselves to be common thieves, (which they are) but seem to think it clever to get away without paying.

Your analogy is not correct. These persons did pay a fare, so they are not thieves. Not paying the correct amount (of which they were totally unaware and the train company did not inform them) is not theft. Nor did they deliberately refrain from paying. They were paying passengers. What happened was that they were not aware of the exclusion clause preventing them from exiting the service two stations early. Its a contractual, rather than criminal matter.

As I stated earlier - This used to be an offence, those Bye Laws have been replaced.
In my opinion It is now a civil debt.
To be an offence it would require an element of 'mens rea' - An intention to defraud, and I do not believe that has been shown in this case.

Fred_In_Brizzle wrote:
The "National Rail Conditions of Carriage" (Google it for a pdf) state that on a regular train ticket commuters can start, break or end a journey at intermediate stations.

However, It also clearly states that on some tickets - for example a ticket that allows the commuter to travel on the London Underground - you are NOT allowed to break \ resume your journey and if you do you may be fined.

I'm guessing this couple falls into the latter. While I would agree it seems a bit excessive the ticket inspector is simply applying the rules which the passengers should have been aware of, no point feigning surprise because of ignorance.

I'm not really sure what "Passenger Focus" are talking about either, the rules seem pretty clear to me?

The same National Rail Conditions of Carriage also states that if the ticket falls into the latter, customers fare will be 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) use. The customers should have therefore have been charged £21.70 each - this being the OFF PEAK fare on Sundays from London to Eastleigh of £27.70 less the 6.00 cost of the tickets they held. Also according to same document NONE of penalty fares rules were broken - Did the couple travel without valid tickets, did they travel with a railcard discounted tickets without railcards, did they in first class accommodation with a standard ticket, did they travel on a child rate ticket or did they travel beyond the destination on their ticket? In my home city of Sheffield, East Midlands Trains (one of Stagecoach's other train companies) are not particularly popular there as they want to restrict access of a footbridge to heavy rail customers with tickets (by placing automatic ticket barriers) and deny safe access to and from the city centre to lots of other users that have lawful business on the railway. This includes customers of the supertram (another Stagecoach railway) and anyone wanting to gain access to the ticket hall.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
You must appreciate that SWT consider that every passenger is a potential criminal, until they become a customer, I guess this applies to most train operating companies, ticketing is extremely confusing and most companies would prefer that you bought your travel on the Internet, or through a ticket machine, thus ridding themselves of cumbersome ticket offices and staff.
It would be better if ticketing was simpler and handled by one universal authority, and tickets available for travel on every companies trains. This has nothing to do with the Labour Government, except that they did nothing to change the damage done by the Conservatives just before they were ousted.

Not just SWT but East Midlands Trains as well, whom I mentioned in my previous post want to put barriers on a footbridge (paid in part by public money). They also think that every customer by someone else's trains are criminals. How many of these ticket barriers are able to accept ITSO cards (e.g. concessionary bus travel passes), some of which are valid on local train services? Those issued by South Yorkshire are valid on local services in the county and through trains into neighbouring West Yorkshire - and are rejected by barriers at Leeds.

X Old Bill wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
There are currently no automatic barriers at Eastleigh, and these people must have been extremely unlucky on the day that they travelled, I travel regularly through the area and it quite a while since I have seen revenue protection staff at this station or on the trains, quite often the train guard walks through the train, and most of them are very friendly and helpful, but are up to most of the tricks and dodges from those that are deliberately trying to avoid paying, and believe me there are plenty of passengers who want to avoid being customers. These are the ones to blame in this instance, not the company, who must lose thousands of pounds every year from people who don't consider themselves to be common thieves, (which they are) but seem to think it clever to get away without paying.

Your analogy is not correct. These persons did pay a fare, so they are not thieves. Not paying the correct amount (of which they were totally unaware and the train company did not inform them) is not theft. Nor did they deliberately refrain from paying. They were paying passengers. What happened was that they were not aware of the exclusion clause preventing them from exiting the service two stations early. Its a contractual, rather than criminal matter.

As I stated earlier - This used to be an offence, those Bye Laws have been replaced.
In my opinion It is now a civil debt.
To be an offence it would require an element of 'mens rea' - An intention to defraud, and I do not believe that has been shown in this case.

I agree. It's quite obvious to most that, regardless of whatever obscure T & C may say, taking a shorter journey than the one you paid for is not an intent to get anything for free.

Looking at the (nicely advertised) website in question, when in the process of purchasing a ticket, not only does it not stipulate that the exact station-to-station journey is the only acceptable one, it explicitly states, in large lettering above the ticket details:

Please note: Departure and arrival times displayed are for the main terminus points you selected. More than one stop location may be available in some cities. If the city you are travelling to/from has more than one stop location, you may use whichever location you prefer.

Eastleigh isn't Southampton, of course, but this statement from the vendor contradicts what the SWT spokesman has said.

There is also a small link at the bottom of the page which says you agree to be bound by the T & Cs of the website. Reading them, they are all about use of the website, and the IP therein, with a link to nationalrail.com's own T & Cs, which actually just re-directs you to the front page of their website. I then have to hunt around for their own T & Cs, which ALSO discuss use of the website, and IP therein. After a fair amount of searching, I found this passage relating to advance fares:

You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.

Given that something quite clearly contrary to that was put right in front of me, and I had to actively seek this other information out, I think even contract law is shaky here. This is a non-case.

They bought a cheap ticket with conditions, should ave read them! I have purchsed cheap advance tickets, thats why they cheap. Ive have tried to get advance to london before, and was told to get on at soton and buy soton -waterloo cheap advance fare. They broke the conditions. Otherwise we would all buy cheap tickets from soton-waterloo and get on where we want.

rafa b wrote:
They bought a cheap ticket with conditions, should ave read them! I have purchsed cheap advance tickets, thats why they cheap. Ive have tried to get advance to london before, and was told to get on at soton and buy soton -waterloo cheap advance fare. They broke the conditions. Otherwise we would all buy cheap tickets from soton-waterloo and get on where we want.

See my post above - at no point is the condition in question actually brought to their attention. And we wouldn't all buy cheap tickets from soton-waterloo, because we don't all know in advance we want to make all our journeys. The ticket wasn't cheap because of the stations, there was no "Avoiding Eastleigh" discount (which is actually it's own reward). It was cheap because they booked it in advance, simple as that.

Victorian Principles wrote:

rafa b wrote: They bought a cheap ticket with conditions, should ave read them! I have purchsed cheap advance tickets, thats why they cheap. Ive have tried to get advance to london before, and was told to get on at soton and buy soton -waterloo cheap advance fare. They broke the conditions. Otherwise we would all buy cheap tickets from soton-waterloo and get on where we want.

See my post above - at no point is the condition in question actually brought to their attention. And we wouldn't all buy cheap tickets from soton-waterloo, because we don't all know in advance we want to make all our journeys. The ticket wasn't cheap because of the stations, there was no "Avoiding Eastleigh" discount (which is actually it's own reward). It was cheap because they booked it in advance, simple as that.

Yes it is. When buying advance purchase ticket, you are given a conditions card, which mentions no break of journey. Also i heard Booking clerks explain this many a times at stations when stuck behind some numpty who is too thick to realise,. then if its cheap it comes with conditions! If you turn up on the day, then clearly you will not be offered advance purchase tickets. My point is i tried to buy advance tkt eastleigh-soton, and was helpfully told better off booking soton-waterloo, as there is an advance fare. I was then giving a card with ticket clearly explaining conditions telling me to board at soton and alite at waterloo. So dont see the problem

Georgem wrote:

Whitters wrote: Its views like some of you that lead companies to stop offering such cheap tickets. If they wanted to travel from Eastleigh then they should buy a ticket from Eastleigh, costing £30-odd..... ahhhh But they want to try and cheat the system. I forget, a headline of "Couple agreed to T&Cs they did not read and got caught" just does not have the same ring to it.... I take it that Emma and Davyd would also sign up for a Credit Card and then claim outrage when they get charged interest......

Come off it. It's hardly cheating the system. It's perfectly reasonable to think that a shorter journey is cheaper than a longer one on the same route. I presume you can recite the T's & C's of every single agreement you've ever entered into? I presume, for instance, that you're aware of sub-section 3 of clause 12 of the terms and conditions you agreed to when posting your comment? Because unless you know this couple personally, and know their intent when buying the ticket, then your judgement of their behaviour is unjustified, and your predictions about their credit card usage is pure conjecture. Contrary to those terms and conditions you agreed to. Or perhaps they made a mistake in good faith, and you too simply assumed you were allowed to defame people on this website. You're all three of you, only human, after all.

Well its strange you say all that, because the Forum Terms and Conditions are not numbered. But obviously you do not know that because otherwise you would not make such a dumb comment.

No the longer journey is not cheaper. Emma and Davyd receieved a hefty discount on the normal fare on the agreement that they will join the train in London and leave the train at Southampton Central.

I have not "defamed" anyone. I have posed a simple question.

Mistake Not really. Not made themselves aware of the terms of their ticket.... absolutely.

Your talking rubbish really just to try and make yourself look good, because if I had breached the Terms and Conditions of this forum then I would have expected to have my post removed by now......

rafa b wrote:
They bought a cheap ticket with conditions, should ave read them! I have purchsed cheap advance tickets, thats why they cheap. Ive have tried to get advance to london before, and was told to get on at soton and buy soton -waterloo cheap advance fare. They broke the conditions. Otherwise we would all buy cheap tickets from soton-waterloo and get on where we want.

Perhaps you could show all of us where these terms and conditions exist then. We have had various contributors telling us that they are very difficult to pin down. As I said before, the use of exclusion clauses within a contract has to be brought to the attention of the purchaser in a very significant way; otherwise they are not deemed to be valid. Try looking at Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking to see what Lord Denning had to saw about it. You might also like to explore the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 for further details.

Thank you.

Donald2000 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote: There are currently no automatic barriers at Eastleigh, and these people must have been extremely unlucky on the day that they travelled, I travel regularly through the area and it quite a while since I have seen revenue protection staff at this station or on the trains, quite often the train guard walks through the train, and most of them are very friendly and helpful, but are up to most of the tricks and dodges from those that are deliberately trying to avoid paying, and believe me there are plenty of passengers who want to avoid being customers. These are the ones to blame in this instance, not the company, who must lose thousands of pounds every year from people who don't consider themselves to be common thieves, (which they are) but seem to think it clever to get away without paying.

Your analogy is not correct. These persons did pay a fare, so they are not thieves. Not paying the correct amount (of which they were totally unaware and the train company did not inform them) is not theft. Nor did they deliberately refrain from paying. They were paying passengers. What happened was that they were not aware of the exclusion clause preventing them from exiting the service two stations early. Its a contractual, rather than criminal matter.

Theft.... No your right, what they actually did (in the letter of the law) is defraud the railway as per the Regulation of Railways Act. This is not the same as fraud under the Theft Act 1978 Sections 1 and 2.

Whitters wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote: There are currently no automatic barriers at Eastleigh, and these people must have been extremely unlucky on the day that they travelled, I travel regularly through the area and it quite a while since I have seen revenue protection staff at this station or on the trains, quite often the train guard walks through the train, and most of them are very friendly and helpful, but are up to most of the tricks and dodges from those that are deliberately trying to avoid paying, and believe me there are plenty of passengers who want to avoid being customers. These are the ones to blame in this instance, not the company, who must lose thousands of pounds every year from people who don't consider themselves to be common thieves, (which they are) but seem to think it clever to get away without paying.

Your analogy is not correct. These persons did pay a fare, so they are not thieves. Not paying the correct amount (of which they were totally unaware and the train company did not inform them) is not theft. Nor did they deliberately refrain from paying. They were paying passengers. What happened was that they were not aware of the exclusion clause preventing them from exiting the service two stations early. Its a contractual, rather than criminal matter.

Theft.... No your right, what they actually did (in the letter of the law) is defraud the railway as per the Regulation of Railways Act. This is not the same as fraud under the Theft Act 1978 Sections 1 and 2.

I am interested in this; please quote chapter and verse of the relevant parts of the RRA. I would be most grateful. Thank you.

In further response to what has been said above, in order to be prosecuted for fraud under the Regulation of Railways Act you have to be reported for prosecution by the Inspector. This is done by the Inspector taking down your details in a notebook and the passenger signing to say that the statement that he or she has written is correct. If this was not done on this occasion then I take it that the railways were not considering such a prosecution.

Further to the above, the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 is only used when someone travels on the railway without a valid ticket and with intent to avoid payment AND/OR refuses to give a valid name and address to a railway officer when challenged. Clearly this is not the case here.

Regulation of Railways Act 1889
Section 5(1):
Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address;
Section 5(3):
If any person—

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

(c)Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,
.
It is all on the OPSI website.
Railway Staff and BTP refer to it as 'Travel Fraud', and it is not Deception as defined by the Theft Act 1978.
The former being a Summary Offence, and the latter being a Crime.

This is typical of SWT. I travel widely by rail, at least as far as Inverness each year, and find other operators are normally much more generous-spirited.

This couple had paid for every mile they had travelled and, at worst, this was a minor technical offence. Even if I were a SWT jobsworth, I hope I would be reasonable enough to realise that the maximum hypothetical loss to SWT was no more than £6.40 (one third less with a railcard). This is what it would have cost the couple to complete their journey to Southampton and then buy two singles back to Eastleigh.

Eastleigh MP Chris Huhne has been among those criticising SWT for its disproportionate treatment of passengers in the recent past.

Brian Souter, Chairman of SWT's parent company Stagecoach, believes that "ethics are not irrelevant but some are incompatible with what we have to do because capitalism is based on greed".

Stagecoach first got out of the red by selling off Southampton's bus station at a huge profit.

SWT has been such a cash-cow that Stagecoach seriously overbid for the latest franchise (about £600m more than the next highest bidder) so Southampton Central lost its busy station travel centre and the popular Wessex Electric trains. The station has been an eyesore for 2 years and a £3m improvement scheme is underway, with SWT paying only a quarter of the cost. This is the kind of hidden subsidy that is costing the country so dearly.

SWT also introduced a 20% surcharge on morning off-peak services to London. Footfall slumped at Waterloo far more than at other London termini like Victoria. To make good the drop in revenue, taxpayers are to give Stagecoach an extra, unbudgeted, £70m-£100m, an amount which would have met the cost of the cancelled order for 14 new trains for Great Western's overcrowded Portsmouth-Cardiff service.

No wonder only one third of respondents to SWT's on-line poll thought Stagecoach should have kept the franchise (result confirmed by Passenger Focus, but SWT published a false figure of 61% in its former e-motion magazine).

So long as Stagecoach retains the SWT franchise, it will do anything to recoup some of the wasted £600m, so passengers will carrying on receiving spiteful and disproportionate treatment.

The Government is currently consulting on the future of rail franchising. All details on the DfT website, and the deadline for comment is 18 October. A bit more ethical behaviour on the SWT franchise wouldn't go amiss.

Taken From: NATIONAL RAIL CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE - Part of Para 12:
....If a restriction applies and the ticket you are using is not valid for the train you are travelling in, then:
(a) you will be liable to pay an excess fare (the difference between the price
paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket
available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel in that train for the journey shown on the ticket); or
(b) in the case of some types of discounted tickets (as indicated in the notices and publications) the relevant parts of Condition 2 or 4 will apply.
(Conditions 2 & 4 refer to Penalty Fares)

X Old Bill wrote:
Taken From: NATIONAL RAIL CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE - Part of Para 12: ....If a restriction applies and the ticket you are using is not valid for the train you are travelling in, then: (a) you will be liable to pay an excess fare (the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel in that train for the journey shown on the ticket); or (b) in the case of some types of discounted tickets (as indicated in the notices and publications) the relevant parts of Condition 2 or 4 will apply. (Conditions 2 & 4 refer to Penalty Fares)

The ticket they held was available for the train that they were travelling in, they just got off the train two stations early, a situation not really covered by the RRA 1889 which you so correctly summarise.

The choice available to station staff therefore was only to penalty fare them; its a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Interestingly enough, no-one has spotted that if they had got on another train to Southampton, the guard could have charged them the difference between a single from Waterloo to Southampton and the previous fare paid. I therefore make that £23.00 excess fare * 2 = £46.00 The reason why station staff did not do this was that they considered that the ticket was not valid for the route chosen.

The penalty fare regulations are especially stringent in this respect in that the "fine" is £20.00 or double the appropriate single fare. In this case £57.00.

I dont think its especially appropriate to start talking about whether or not an offence has been committed. The Inspector obviously felt that one had not been committed because he did not complete his notebook.

Thank you.

Donald2000 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote: There are currently no automatic barriers at Eastleigh, and these people must have been extremely unlucky on the day that they travelled, I travel regularly through the area and it quite a while since I have seen revenue protection staff at this station or on the trains, quite often the train guard walks through the train, and most of them are very friendly and helpful, but are up to most of the tricks and dodges from those that are deliberately trying to avoid paying, and believe me there are plenty of passengers who want to avoid being customers. These are the ones to blame in this instance, not the company, who must lose thousands of pounds every year from people who don't consider themselves to be common thieves, (which they are) but seem to think it clever to get away without paying.

Your analogy is not correct. These persons did pay a fare, so they are not thieves. Not paying the correct amount (of which they were totally unaware and the train company did not inform them) is not theft. Nor did they deliberately refrain from paying. They were paying passengers. What happened was that they were not aware of the exclusion clause preventing them from exiting the service two stations early. Its a contractual, rather than criminal matter.

It was not my intention to accuse these particular individuals, they made the heinous mistake of changing their mind about where to get off the train, probably were not aware of the regulation laid out in the small print, I was aiming at the numerous cheats who use trains without paying, thinking it is clever, this makes it bad for the rest of us who pay their way.

From the frequently asked question section on the megatrain site. "Q>My reservation states London St. Pancras; can I board/alight elsewhere?

A>You must board and alight at the point shown on your reservation, and it is a condition of travel on the train element of megabusplus that you may not board or alight at other points on the route. If you do board/alight at somewhere other than St. Pancras, you will be charged the full single fare for the actual journey made."
Seem perfectly clear to me.

Bowmore wrote:
From the frequently asked question section on the megatrain site. "Q>My reservation states London St. Pancras; can I board/alight elsewhere? A>You must board and alight at the point shown on your reservation, and it is a condition of travel on the train element of megabusplus that you may not board or alight at other points on the route. If you do board/alight at somewhere other than St. Pancras, you will be charged the full single fare for the actual journey made." Seem perfectly clear to me.

It may well say that; I myself have said that is a possibility. The station staff decided to go one stage further and charge them double the appropriate single fare as a penalty. You have to ask yourself one question: is that a fair or proportionate response to what happened?

My real worry is that the publicity from this case will put more and more people off from travelling by rail for fear of being caught out by the bewildering plethora of idiotic regulations and jobsworth interventions. Mind you, that would be welcome on the inadequate trains provided by First on the Bristol Route and Ariva on the Cross Country trains. Less passengers more room for me....

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
My real worry is that the publicity from this case will put more and more people off from travelling by rail for fear of being caught out by the bewildering plethora of idiotic regulations and jobsworth interventions. Mind you, that would be welcome on the inadequate trains provided by First on the Bristol Route and Ariva on the Cross Country trains. Less passengers more room for me....

I think everyone knows that the only rail company which really needs to be majorly avoided is SWT themselves.

Donald2000 wrote:

rafa b wrote: They bought a cheap ticket with conditions, should ave read them! I have purchsed cheap advance tickets, thats why they cheap. Ive have tried to get advance to london before, and was told to get on at soton and buy soton -waterloo cheap advance fare. They broke the conditions. Otherwise we would all buy cheap tickets from soton-waterloo and get on where we want.

Perhaps you could show all of us where these terms and conditions exist then. We have had various contributors telling us that they are very difficult to pin down. As I said before, the use of exclusion clauses within a contract has to be brought to the attention of the purchaser in a very significant way; otherwise they are not deemed to be valid. Try looking at Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking to see what Lord Denning had to saw about it. You might also like to explore the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 for further details. Thank you.

Put your A Level law book away, yes I am familar with these! However might i suggest visiting planet earth, and use common sense. If you purchase a cheap ticket for £6.00, of course there will be conditions. As you are an expert on law you may fimilar with" buyer beware" and he who seeks equity should come with clean hands, and more important ignorance of the law is no excuse. Surely any numpty will realise this,they got caught and now attempt to plead ignorance and complain. They paid £6!! the ticket is not valid. simple as that.

rafa b wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

rafa b wrote: They bought a cheap ticket with conditions, should ave read them! I have purchsed cheap advance tickets, thats why they cheap. Ive have tried to get advance to london before, and was told to get on at soton and buy soton -waterloo cheap advance fare. They broke the conditions. Otherwise we would all buy cheap tickets from soton-waterloo and get on where we want.

Perhaps you could show all of us where these terms and conditions exist then. We have had various contributors telling us that they are very difficult to pin down. As I said before, the use of exclusion clauses within a contract has to be brought to the attention of the purchaser in a very significant way; otherwise they are not deemed to be valid. Try looking at Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking to see what Lord Denning had to saw about it. You might also like to explore the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 for further details. Thank you.

Put your A Level law book away, yes I am familar with these! However might i suggest visiting planet earth, and use common sense. If you purchase a cheap ticket for £6.00, of course there will be conditions. As you are an expert on law you may fimilar with" buyer beware" and he who seeks equity should come with clean hands, and more important ignorance of the law is no excuse. Surely any numpty will realise this,they got caught and now attempt to plead ignorance and complain. They paid £6!! the ticket is not valid. simple as that.

Proportionality is also an aspect of punishment.

Show me where the response of South West Trains is proportionate to what occured.

Donald2000 wrote:

rafa b wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

rafa b wrote: They bought a cheap ticket with conditions, should ave read them! I have purchsed cheap advance tickets, thats why they cheap. Ive have tried to get advance to london before, and was told to get on at soton and buy soton -waterloo cheap advance fare. They broke the conditions. Otherwise we would all buy cheap tickets from soton-waterloo and get on where we want.

Perhaps you could show all of us where these terms and conditions exist then. We have had various contributors telling us that they are very difficult to pin down. As I said before, the use of exclusion clauses within a contract has to be brought to the attention of the purchaser in a very significant way; otherwise they are not deemed to be valid. Try looking at Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking to see what Lord Denning had to saw about it. You might also like to explore the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 for further details. Thank you.

Put your A Level law book away, yes I am familar with these! However might i suggest visiting planet earth, and use common sense. If you purchase a cheap ticket for £6.00, of course there will be conditions. As you are an expert on law you may fimilar with" buyer beware" and he who seeks equity should come with clean hands, and more important ignorance of the law is no excuse. Surely any numpty will realise this,they got caught and now attempt to plead ignorance and complain. They paid £6!! the ticket is not valid. simple as that.

Proportionality is also an aspect of punishment. Show me where the response of South West Trains is proportionate to what occured.

The reponse of SWT, as any business would is to be compensated for the loss of revenue. They now have been charged the correct standard fare, in accordance with railway bye laws and conditions of carriage, and the conditions of ticket. That fits for me!

rafa b wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

rafa b wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

rafa b wrote: They bought a cheap ticket with conditions, should ave read them! I have purchsed cheap advance tickets, thats why they cheap. Ive have tried to get advance to london before, and was told to get on at soton and buy soton -waterloo cheap advance fare. They broke the conditions. Otherwise we would all buy cheap tickets from soton-waterloo and get on where we want.

Perhaps you could show all of us where these terms and conditions exist then. We have had various contributors telling us that they are very difficult to pin down. As I said before, the use of exclusion clauses within a contract has to be brought to the attention of the purchaser in a very significant way; otherwise they are not deemed to be valid. Try looking at Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking to see what Lord Denning had to saw about it. You might also like to explore the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 for further details. Thank you.

Put your A Level law book away, yes I am familar with these! However might i suggest visiting planet earth, and use common sense. If you purchase a cheap ticket for £6.00, of course there will be conditions. As you are an expert on law you may fimilar with" buyer beware" and he who seeks equity should come with clean hands, and more important ignorance of the law is no excuse. Surely any numpty will realise this,they got caught and now attempt to plead ignorance and complain. They paid £6!! the ticket is not valid. simple as that.

Proportionality is also an aspect of punishment. Show me where the response of South West Trains is proportionate to what occured.

The reponse of SWT, as any business would is to be compensated for the loss of revenue. They now have been charged the correct standard fare, in accordance with railway bye laws and conditions of carriage, and the conditions of ticket. That fits for me!

They were not charged a fare; they were charged a penalty of twice the single fare appropriate to the journey undertaken.

Is that proportionate to what occured, or do you consider that SWT were just that little bit over the top about this?

Victorian Principles wrote:

X Old Bill wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote: There are currently no automatic barriers at Eastleigh, and these people must have been extremely unlucky on the day that they travelled, I travel regularly through the area and it quite a while since I have seen revenue protection staff at this station or on the trains, quite often the train guard walks through the train, and most of them are very friendly and helpful, but are up to most of the tricks and dodges from those that are deliberately trying to avoid paying, and believe me there are plenty of passengers who want to avoid being customers. These are the ones to blame in this instance, not the company, who must lose thousands of pounds every year from people who don't consider themselves to be common thieves, (which they are) but seem to think it clever to get away without paying.

Your analogy is not correct. These persons did pay a fare, so they are not thieves. Not paying the correct amount (of which they were totally unaware and the train company did not inform them) is not theft. Nor did they deliberately refrain from paying. They were paying passengers. What happened was that they were not aware of the exclusion clause preventing them from exiting the service two stations early. Its a contractual, rather than criminal matter.

As I stated earlier - This used to be an offence, those Bye Laws have been replaced. In my opinion It is now a civil debt. To be an offence it would require an element of 'mens rea' - An intention to defraud, and I do not believe that has been shown in this case.

I agree. It's quite obvious to most that, regardless of whatever obscure T & C may say, taking a shorter journey than the one you paid for is not an intent to get anything for free. Looking at the (nicely advertised) website in question, when in the process of purchasing a ticket, not only does it not stipulate that the exact station-to-station journey is the only acceptable one, it explicitly states, in large lettering above the ticket details:

Please note: Departure and arrival times displayed are for the main terminus points you selected. More than one stop location may be available in some cities. If the city you are travelling to/from has more than one stop location, you may use whichever location you prefer.

Eastleigh isn't Southampton, of course, but this statement from the vendor contradicts what the SWT spokesman has said. There is also a small link at the bottom of the page which says you agree to be bound by the T & Cs of the website. Reading them, they are all about use of the website, and the IP therein, with a link to nationalrail.com's own T & Cs, which actually just re-directs you to the front page of their website. I then have to hunt around for their own T & Cs, which ALSO discuss use of the website, and IP therein. After a fair amount of searching, I found this passage relating to advance fares:

You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.

Given that something quite clearly contrary to that was put right in front of me, and I had to actively seek this other information out, I think even contract law is shaky here. This is a non-case.

Victorian Principles. I think you should read those conditions on the megatrain website again as it seems you have not read them.it is not all about website conditions and you don't have to click anywhere else to find the conditions it is there on that very page and clearly says under reservation terms and conditions '4.Bookings are only valid on the journey(s) and places stated.' They have broken this condition by not travelling to the place stated being Southampton.

as somebody before rightly said what happens if you are ill do you have to stay on the train at detriment to your health or risk getting fined, its a bit silly to be honest, i cant see how if the train was going there anyway it would make a difference!!!

One of the things I notice most about South West Trains is that they dont know what their own rules are; or if they do, they dont practice them. I would not be surprised one bit if the Inspector who issued this penalty fare has been hauled over the carpet for getting the company into trouble. He will have been told that it is not pleasant to see the company plastered all over the national and local newspapers and had better watch his step.

Its not beyond the realms of possibility that their prosecutions department will conveniently forget the penalty fare as well.

Thats the way they back their staff in that company.

Donald2000 wrote:

Whitters wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote: There are currently no automatic barriers at Eastleigh, and these people must have been extremely unlucky on the day that they travelled, I travel regularly through the area and it quite a while since I have seen revenue protection staff at this station or on the trains, quite often the train guard walks through the train, and most of them are very friendly and helpful, but are up to most of the tricks and dodges from those that are deliberately trying to avoid paying, and believe me there are plenty of passengers who want to avoid being customers. These are the ones to blame in this instance, not the company, who must lose thousands of pounds every year from people who don't consider themselves to be common thieves, (which they are) but seem to think it clever to get away without paying.

Your analogy is not correct. These persons did pay a fare, so they are not thieves. Not paying the correct amount (of which they were totally unaware and the train company did not inform them) is not theft. Nor did they deliberately refrain from paying. They were paying passengers. What happened was that they were not aware of the exclusion clause preventing them from exiting the service two stations early. Its a contractual, rather than criminal matter.

Theft.... No your right, what they actually did (in the letter of the law) is defraud the railway as per the Regulation of Railways Act. This is not the same as fraud under the Theft Act 1978 Sections 1 and 2.

I am interested in this; please quote chapter and verse of the relevant parts of the RRA. I would be most grateful. Thank you.

Well Donald2000,

There would be a number of courses of action as far as I am concerned.

Under Section 5(1) of the Act, it states: "Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid. " In this case Emma and Davyd have not produced the ticket for the fare paid, they have produced a ticket for a fare paid from London to Southampton Central, therefore they have not produced a ticket for the journey they have actually made.

Section 5(3)(b) "Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof" could also be argued to apply although less likely as Emma and Davyd have paid for a certain distance London to Southampton Central and therefore are travelling beyond the conditions of the fare paid, not specifically in distance.

Whitters wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

Whitters wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote: There are currently no automatic barriers at Eastleigh, and these people must have been extremely unlucky on the day that they travelled, I travel regularly through the area and it quite a while since I have seen revenue protection staff at this station or on the trains, quite often the train guard walks through the train, and most of them are very friendly and helpful, but are up to most of the tricks and dodges from those that are deliberately trying to avoid paying, and believe me there are plenty of passengers who want to avoid being customers. These are the ones to blame in this instance, not the company, who must lose thousands of pounds every year from people who don't consider themselves to be common thieves, (which they are) but seem to think it clever to get away without paying.

Your analogy is not correct. These persons did pay a fare, so they are not thieves. Not paying the correct amount (of which they were totally unaware and the train company did not inform them) is not theft. Nor did they deliberately refrain from paying. They were paying passengers. What happened was that they were not aware of the exclusion clause preventing them from exiting the service two stations early. Its a contractual, rather than criminal matter.

Theft.... No your right, what they actually did (in the letter of the law) is defraud the railway as per the Regulation of Railways Act. This is not the same as fraud under the Theft Act 1978 Sections 1 and 2.

I am interested in this; please quote chapter and verse of the relevant parts of the RRA. I would be most grateful. Thank you.

Well Donald2000, There would be a number of courses of action as far as I am concerned. Under Section 5(1) of the Act, it states: "Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid. " In this case Emma and Davyd have not produced the ticket for the fare paid, they have produced a ticket for a fare paid from London to Southampton Central, therefore they have not produced a ticket for the journey they have actually made. Section 5(3)(b) "Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof" could also be argued to apply although less likely as Emma and Davyd have paid for a certain distance London to Southampton Central and therefore are travelling beyond the conditions of the fare paid, not specifically in distance.

Thanks Whitters. Good stuff. I agree with you that 5(1) is the more likely and 5(3)(b) the less likely scenario.

They were unlucky in that a member of the revenue protection team was at that station at that particular time. An on train fine would more likely to have been an excess up to the standard fare with the possibility of a penalty fare warning. However, the revenue protection team, being authorised issuers of the penalty fare document, have issued the fine?

I think the gist of my argument is likely to be on moral and/or ethical grounds, rather than a strict legal one. What happened was out of all proportion to what this couple could have intended. Therefore it is something which could conceivably have been argued in magistrates or county court.

Many thanks.