First class cheaper than standard oddity

[yorkie]

I think a lot of assumptions are made regarding travel expenses which have no basis in fact.

I often travel to a facility which means I need to go from my home village, in Midlothian, to Didcot Parkway. They, not my employer, pay for travel. The cost of a Super-Off peak single is now a tad over £115 and can sometimes, but not always, be brought down by split ticketing. However, last year the facility decided to apply a limit on travel expense claims as a way of saving money, with four different claim limits depending on distance (£50, £100, £150 and £200. Anywhere which is Newcastle and beyond can now claim no more than £200. Thus if I only buy Super-Off peak tickets I will be £30 out of pocket, and the conditions of claiming make it clear one cannot claim from another source (which would be fraud) so my employer cannot make up the shortfall.

Attempts to protest this, armed with evidence, fell on deaf ears. Of course, those travelling from London are OK as an off peak return is £12 lower than the first claim limit

I think that is highly unusual. I have claimed expenses from a variety of employers and clients and never experienced this.

However it's not completely unheard of either; I remember at least one other person describing a similar principle, but it's certainly not the norm.

 

[Haywain]

Anywhere which is Newcastle and beyond can now claim no more than £200. Thus if I only buy Super-Off peak tickets I will be £30 out of pocket, and the conditions of claiming make it clear one cannot claim from another source (which would be fraud) so my employer cannot make up the shortfall.

If travelling for work was going to leave me out of pocket, I wouldn't be travelling.

 

[yorkie]

If travelling for work was going to leave me out of pocket, I wouldn't be travelling.

It may be the case that it's worth it for the overall pay, even if the expense element wasn't fully accounted for.

Also, related to that, I can see why people may choose to upgrade a journey out of their own pocket, for a more pleasant and/or productive journey; I frequently do that on trains from York to Birmingham.

 

[nitten_travell]

I think that is highly unusual. I have claimed expenses from a variety of employers and clients and never experienced this.

However it's not completely unheard of either; I remember at least one other person describing a similar principle, but it's certainly not the norm.

Agreed. They're technically civil servants (they describe themselves as the "scientific civil service") and I think this is a way of demonstrating, or attempting to demonstrate, cost savings. Since their policy is available online I will link it below. There are now five distance "zones"; the last covers everything north of Hull.

https://www.diamond.ac.uk/Users/Policy-Documents/Policies/Financial-Support---Expenses-Procedure-for-Diamond-Users.html#accordion_22949c5d-056d-4bb9-82a5-c7f121f6d3e8

Diamond will fund train journeys, mileage, car hire and flights between Diamond [based at Didcot] and the nearest or most convenient departure point from a UK User’s home organisation up to the capped costs set out in the below and accordance with this Procedure. Any alternative means of travel, or travel from an alternative address that is more economical should be considered and used as far as possible.

UK radius from DLS - up to	Example of cities	Funding up to (rtn)	This funding supports
0-75 Miles	Southampton, London, Bristol, Bath	£50	Train, car hire, coaches and/or mileage
75-100 miles	Cambridge, Birmingham	£100	Train, car hire, coaches and/or mileage
100-175	Nottingham, Sheffield	£150	Train, car hire, coaches and/or mileage
175-200	Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York	£175	Train, car hire, coaches and/or mileage
200+	Durham, Newcastle, Glasgow St Andrews, Edinburgh, Belfast	£200	Train, car hire and/or mileage, flights

For reference, see map here

 

[infobleep]

I can only assume the clarification was added after enough people had said "but the first class ticket was cheaper" and produced evidence of this. I, for one, would always take a screenshot if buying a first class ticket given I'm not allowed to travel first class and I am expected to buy the cheapest ticket I can, to demonstrate compliance with the latter point. Compliance with the former point is assumed, I think.

Well if they apply the letter of the rules, they can catch you either way.

 

[redreni]

Well if they apply the letter of the rules, they can catch you either way.

Not at all; I don't travel first class.

 

[infobleep]

Not at all; I don't travel first class.

I do travel in first class labeled sections of trains but only when declassified.

They aren't that great so it puts me off travelling first class. I am so use to standard class now that I wouldn't bother paying extra anywhere to travel first class. Without some research how would one know the first class wasn't just as bad.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do travel in first class labeled sections of trains but only when declassified.

They aren't that great so it puts me off travelling first class. I am so use to standard class now that I wouldn't bother paying extra anywhere to travel first class. Without some research how would one know the first class wasn't just as bad.

You travel in it once and decide if you like it?

 

[SHD]

Cheeky question: Does a person who buys a first class ticket that is cheaper than all Standard fares on offer for the same journey and sits in Standard class rather than in their assigned class of carriage commit a ticketing offence?

 

[Haywain]

Cheeky question: Does a person who buys a first class ticket that is cheaper than all Standard fares on offer for the same journey and sits in Standard class rather than in their assigned class of carriage commit a ticketing offence?

No.

 

[SHD]

Yet they are transferring fewer pounds and pence into the TOC's wallet than what the company expected at the time of purchase for a journey in Standard class, so surely the TOC must be at a loss.
/s

 

[Mag_seven]

Yet they are transferring fewer pounds and pence into the TOC's wallet than what the company expected at the time of purchase for a journey in Standard class, so surely the TOC must be at a loss.
/s

First class tickets are valid in Standard Class.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Cheeky question: Does a person who buys a first class ticket that is cheaper than all Standard fares on offer for the same journey and sits in Standard class rather than in their assigned class of carriage commit a ticketing offence?

It presumably depends on the ticket. Although it doesn't seem to be enforced very much, advance tickets are only meant to be used in the specified reserved seat (on - obviously - the specified service: that bit is enforced). So traincrew would be within their rights to send someone with a first class advance ticket back to their designated (first class) seat if they were found in a standard class seat.

But whether train crew would actually do that is, of course, a different question.

And has anyone identified any open first class tickets which are cheaper than the standard class equivalents? (A simple yes or no is probably the best answer for this to avoid getting into arguments about whether TOC pricing managers lurk round here.)

 

[SHD]

It presumably depends on the ticket. Although it doesn't seem to be enforced very much, advance tickets are only meant to be used in the specified reserved seat (on - obviously - the specified service: that bit is enforced). So traincrew would be within their rights to send someone with a first class advance ticket back to their designated (first class) seat if they were found in a standard class seat.

But whether train crew would actually do that is, of course, a different question.

I would pay good money, perhaps the price of an Anytime Standard Return, just to see a train crew firmly escorting a passenger back to First class where they belong
The situation has the potential for utmost Pythonesque comedy. With Palin as the dumbfounded passenger and Chapman as the absurdly by-the-book guard.

 

[infobleep]

I would pay good money, perhaps the price of an Anytime Standard Return, just to see a train crew firmly escorting a passenger back to First class where they belong
The situation has the potential for utmost Pythonesque comedy. With Palin as the dumbfounded passenger and Chapman as the absurdly by-the-book guard.

That would be unmissable TV for sure.

 

[CarltonA]

Over forty years ago I was involved in making travel arrangements in the army. Officers of the rank of Major or above had to travel in first class. Officers below that rank were to travel in 2nd class, unless they were (necessarily) travelling in uniform then they were to sit in 1st. These rules were to be strictly obeyed even if Officers and Other Ranks were travelling together they must be in the ordained part of the train. There were military movement offices at certain stations staffed with military who could report any rule breaking over classes and uniforms or any other petty matter.

 

[nitten_travell]

I would pay good money, perhaps the price of an Anytime Standard Return, just to see a train crew firmly escorting a passenger back to First class where they belong
The situation has the potential for utmost Pythonesque comedy. With Palin as the dumbfounded passenger and Chapman as the absurdly by-the-book guard.

That such a thing might even be thought plausible is quite a comment on how the rail network operates in Great Britain!

 

[Qwerty133]

I think a lot of assumptions are made regarding travel expenses which have no basis in fact.

I often travel to a facility which means I need to go from my home village, in Midlothian, to Didcot Parkway. They, not my employer, pay for travel. The cost of a Super-Off peak single is now a tad over £115 and can sometimes, but not always, be brought down by split ticketing. However, last year the facility decided to apply a limit on travel expense claims as a way of saving money, with four different claim limits depending on distance (£50, £100, £150 and £200. Anywhere which is Newcastle and beyond can now claim no more than £200. Thus if I only buy Super-Off peak tickets I will be £30 out of pocket, and the conditions of claiming make it clear one cannot claim from another source (which would be fraud) so my employer cannot make up the shortfall.

Attempts to protest this, armed with evidence, fell on deaf ears. Of course, those travelling from London are OK as an off peak return is £12 lower than the first claim limit

Honestly I think there needs to be more absolute limits on expenses with regards to people choosing to live in remote locations when the expenses are being paid by the taxpayer. Whilst people shouldn't be rejected from opportunities based upon where they live if they are physically able to get to the location I don't think it's reasonable to expect for journeys of several hundred miles to be paid for by the taxpayer unless there is a specific need for the person to come from that particular location and putting a maximum travel expense into place allows such people to choose between taking some of the hit themselves or opting to pass on the work.

 

[Haywain]

unless there is a specific need for the person to come from that particular location.

So would that be an absolute limit or not?

 

[Qwerty133]

So would that be an absolute limit or not?

An absolute limit for those who either are home based or not employed by the organisation. The exceptions would be to allow internal employees from workplace A to visit workplace B if required (and only where the employee has no choice but to be based out of workplace A).
If you have to work in Plymouth but are needed in Glasgow for a week you should not be out of pocket but if you can choose your base other the occasional in person event you should pick up the cost if you choose to live a long way from where these events will take place. Similarly whilst contractors should be allowed to choose to set up where they wish it is for the contractor rather than taxpayer to pick up the travel expenses if they choose to base themselves away from where the work is required to be performed (an equally if the contractor is happy to allow working from home from anywhere again they could choose to pass the cost to individual employees where they choose to live a long way from the on site location).

 

[ClivePage]

Happens a lot on the Cardiff to Penzance route where first class is just a bigger seat (no catering etc) but really cheap 1st advance are often available

It used to happen on the Nottingham to London route on Sundays, I believe. As a result the first class used to get quite full while leaving standard carriages fairly empty. A ticket collector that I got to know said that he had great fun going through the 1st class carriages asking if anyone wanted to pay extra to travel in standard class where there many more seats. Of course this was just his little joke.

 

[Haywain]

An absolute limit for those who either are home based or not employed by the organisation. The exceptions would be to allow internal employees from workplace A to visit workplace B if required (and only where the employee has no choice but to be based out of workplace A).

So it's an absolute limit except when it's not. For home based staff that could be a breach of their contract, and for non-employees it would just be recovered elsewhere.

 

[Qwerty133]

So it's an absolute limit except when it's not. For home based staff that could be a breach of their contract, and for non-employees it would just be recovered elsewhere.

It is entirely reasonable to treat those who choose to live in Nowheresville (as is the case many home workers) despite knowing they will have to spend some work time on site differently to those who are forced to live there because they are expected on site locally 95% of the time. Historically the vast vast majority of workers were tied to a specific location by the need to attend work in person 5 days per week, as this becomes less of an expectation with the increase in WfH it is not reasonable to increase the burden on the taxpayer by funding the trips of those who have chosen to live in other parts of the country.

 

[infobleep]

It is entirely reasonable to treat those who choose to live in Nowheresville (as is the case many home workers) despite knowing they will have to spend some work time on site differently to those who are forced to live there because they are expected on site locally 95% of the time. Historically the vast vast majority of workers were tied to a specific location by the need to attend work in person 5 days per week, as this becomes less of an expectation with the increase in WfH it is not reasonable to increase the burden on the taxpayer by funding the trips of those who have chosen to live in other parts of the country.

So could contractors move around the country for each contract they work on, some of which might only be 6 months? Or are you saying they should never look for work beyond where they live?