BBC News: Apology after man told to pay for London train trip twice

[whole diary]

[TerminalJunkie]

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

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

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

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

'Mean-minded'

Mr Connett said he changed his travel plans, which he had bought his original advance ticket for, because his car had to go in for repairs and he was offered a lift to Exeter.

Although he was going from a different station, he said he was still intending to travel on the same service he was originally booked on.

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

"No one was trying to defraud First Great Western out of anything.

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

Mr Connett did buy a second ticket.

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

He said: "There are rules are about advance tickets. There are conditions attached, and we want to make sure that people follow those."

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

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

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

[Fourbee]

Would it be possible to change the origin on the advance before travelling (subject to the administration fee)?

[grahame]

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10103.msg113841#msg113841

I suspect that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were correct in how they interpretted their own rule ... but their rule's rather mean and a bit silly in this cirumstance.  But then it's much more pragramtic for FGW to apologise and move on rather than defend the rule that gives rise to the sillyness. 

Reminds me of the person who got off a station early (Eastleigh) on a London to Southampton ticket.

[TerminalJunkie]

While you might think the rule is "mean and a bit silly", it is nevertheless a rule - and one which they have rigorously enforced in the past. The reason why they apologised and gave a refund in this case may not be entirely unrelated to this:
http://www.devon.gov.uk/councillor_profile_district.htm/councillor_profile-47

[ChrisB]

Indeed, travelling short on an Advance ticket is definitely not allowed.

Usually done to avoid paying a higher Advance fare to the station they actually want to travel to. Its fare evasion....

[paul7575]

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

He said: "There are rules are about advance tickets. There are conditions attached, and we want to make sure that people follow those."

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

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

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

So whoever Dan Paynes is, all he's just proved is that HE doesn't know the rules.  As this stands, he's letting his colleagues (and staff of other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company)) in for a whole load of grief...

Also, contrary to what Grahame seems to imply, this is most definitely not an 'FGW^▸ (First Great Western) only' rule, as the T&C for Advance are standardised nationally, and do not allow any deviation from the start and end stations the fare is for.

Paul

[JayMac]

Break the terms and conditions that you signed up to saying you agree with them, change your plans, get rightly asked to buy a new ticket, go running to the media (possibly using your political clout), and get a profuse apology.

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have done nothing wrong in this case except run scared of adverse publicity. I'm disappointed that they've refunded someone who broke the terms and conditions for the ticket they purchased.

Mr Connett should have excessed his ticket to the available walk-up fare for the train he was booked on, prior to its departure from Newton Abbot, then he would have been free to join that service, or later ones with the same TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company), at Exeter St Davids. I have no sympathy for those who disregard terms and conditions they've signed up to and then try to wing it.

[ChrisB]

What he said.

Sets a very bad precedent.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse but millions of people, probably the vast majority of people do not read the condistions and if they did they would not realise the implications. The real problem is that the rules and conditions on ticket sales are so complex is that the whole ticket regime is so complicated. Remember the days of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) 50+ years ago when fares were a penny a mile for travel at any time and probably the only exceptions were workmens fares and cheap day returns, half day returns and evening returns. Most rail travellers could understand that range.

[Andy W]

I've taken a quick look at the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) website & single fares Newton Abbot - Paddington are ^13.00 - ^102 (absurd range but heh-ho) the Exeter - Paddington fares are ^12.50 - ^98 so he actually paid MORE than he would have had he booked the journey he took (on the same train).

It bewilders me why the 'rules are rules' brigade cannot understand the passengers point of view. He is in no way trying to cheat the system.

There are too many rules and a vacuum of common sense in the rail industry.

[paul7575]

...probably the vast majority of people do not read the condistions and if they did they would not realise the implications.

Appreciating that people may not get round to reading the T&C at all, but surely anyone who does would easily understand the T&C? 

The wording is: "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".

It isn't exactly ambiguous is it?

Paul

[grahame]

While you might think the rule is "mean and a bit silly", it is nevertheless a rule ...

Agreed.  It is a rule on advanced tickets and therefore should be adhered to.  By everyone.

However - I'm sorry but I still find it rather silly that buying a product and only using / consuming part of it is an offence when you've paid for the whole thing.  Imagine going into a restaurant, ordering fish and chips (4.95), not noticing that there were mushy peas too.  So you leave the mushy peas, and when you're given your bill, it's for 8.95 ... because you left the peas.

[swrural]

Graham - exactly.  I was going to write a plus 1 but you summed it up perfectly, but of course you are in business trying actually to please the customer.

[trainer]

I think the mistake that many ordinary pax (i.e. non-professional, non-enthusiasts) make is to assume that the normal, commonsense rules of trade and consumption (as outlined by by grahame in his fish 'n' chip analogy) when purchasing a rail ticket.  They have yet to grasp that in order to travel by train and avoid a second mortgage you need to understand a plethora of T&Cs, which will of course have been read, for each choice of ticket offered.  This error needs more publicity in order to stop the sort of nonsense outlined above continuing and so intending pax understand the power relationships in the contract between them and the railway company.  This should lead to more contented (if fewer) 'customers'.

[bobm]

I don't have the time to look for examples at the moment but I was once told the reason for the rule was to even up loadings on trains.

For example a train coming from London to Cornwall would be priced higher east of Plymouth than trains which terminated at Plymouth to encourage people to use the latter if they were not going into Cornwall and thus spread the numbers and give Cornwall travellers a chance to get a seat. 

I am sure someone can prove or disprove this theory.