"Forced to pay twice for a rail ticket" - one passenger travels with 2 Two Together tickets

[ForTheLoveOf]

As per Article (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/troubleshooter-forced-to-pay-twice-for-a-rail-ticket-wv2pnjcbt):

I bought two tickets to Edinburgh with Virgin East Coast, now London North Eastern Railway (LNER), using my Two Together railcard. My return ticket was with Virgin Trains on its west coast line from Carlisle to London. Unfortunately my friend (the other person on my Two Together railcard) missed his flight from Barbados. My dilemma was to cancel the trip or to travel on my own. The train tickets were advance tickets, so non-refundable. I decided not to waste them both.

Travelling to Edinburgh was without incident. I showed my tickets and my railcard. However, when returning the guard said my tickets were not valid because the other person wasn’t with me. I had to pay £150 for a new ticket.

I had already paid £79.20 in April for the two original tickets. If I had known three months earlier that I would be travelling alone I could have bought a ticket for £61. The guard indicated that I was being dishonest, but I had paid more than a regular first-class ticket. I would like to know what the rules are.

- Derek Dunne, via email

Two Together railcard offers you a third off a train ticket for two people taking a journey together, provided that both people’s photographs are on the card. The railcard costs £30.

Had Mr Dunne bought a ticket for only himself, without the railcard, he would have paid £61. Instead he ended up paying £229 to travel on his own. This seems very harsh — he had both tickets with him and, as he says: “It’s not as if I ate two free lunches on the train, or drank the free wine for two.”

I can understand that identification is an issue. You cannot buy a railcard and bring along someone who does not appear on it, otherwise the card would be open to abuse. Yet I don’t think it should be that big a deal; no one used the other ticket anyway.

Mr Dunne has been trying to get an answer as to the rules, but he says: “It seems to depend on the rail company and the conductor. The first conductor did indicate that I would have a problem with the next conductor, but he didn’t charge me.”

A spokesman for Virgin Trains confirmed that the conductor who charged the £150 was correct. “We’re sorry for the confusion caused during Mr Dunne’s journey. The rules around using a Two Together railcard are clear; both named individuals have to make the journey and this should have been enforced on all legs of the journey.”

In short, Mr Dunne had 2 Two Together discounted Advances. The other passenger on the Railcard could not be there to take the train, so Mr Dunne went on his own - showing the railcard as well as both tickets. He had no problem on the way north with LNER. On his way south, however, he was charged (presumably) an excess of £150 by VTWC to change his Advance to an undiscounted Anytime Single.

In my view, whilst it may indeed be a breach of the Railcard terms to travel with just one of the two passengers required to use the Two Together Railcard, VTWC have not approached the situation correctly - and may even be in breach of consumer and common/contract law by charging £150.

This is because there is no fare avoided if a passenger books two tickets with a Two Together Railcard, as opposed to one ticket without a Railcard. The two Railcard-discounted tickets combined will always cost at least 133% of one undiscounted ticket! This is different to if the same had happened with a Family Railcard and no children were present - as here there is actually a small saving over the undiscounted adult fare (due to the 60% off the already half-price child fare).

In my view, given that the passenger showed both tickets (and because they were Advances) there can be no argument that he was materially in breach of the Railcard terms. Furthermore, in my view, as no passenger will ever advised, when booking, that the cost (or penalty) for travelling alone is £150 - and as this is far beyond what anyone might consider a reasonable charge for that kind of a journey having already bought two tickets - I think VTWC would struggle to justify the charge if it came to Court (i.e. if the passenger gave his name and address and didn't pay there and then).

I think the issue of the level of excess fares - or of fares in general where the passenger has to pay the undiscounted amount on board - is an interesting subject in general. I wonder whether Section 51 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 might come into force in such a situation, and if so, what might be deemed a reasonable price for Carlisle to London.

I also wonder whether a Court might hold a £150 excess (effectively a penalty-like charge) enforceable or not in the wake of the parking law case, ParkingEye v Beavis. There it was ruled that contractually agreed penalties can be enforceable in the context of a consumer contract, however the charge must be made amply clear before the contract is entered into, and it must also serve a legitimate purpose (e.g. in that case, to discourage the misuse of a free retail car park).

I'd be interested to hear any other views on this subject and any of the matters it raises.

 

[RJ]

I think common sense should be applied.

If two tickets priced at a third off are held but only one can travel and is holding both tickets, there's no loss to the railway.

Given there's an industry wide problem training retail and revenue staff to get it right with tickets, including at Virgin Trains, the TOCs really should not be coming down like a ton of bricks on paying customers for technical breaches like this where there's no malicious intent and no revenue loss.

Come on.

 

[island]

The guard was technically in the right, but morally and common-sense wise miles off the mark.

 

[Silverdale]

How are you using the word "materially"?

The conditions for use of the railcard say that both persons must travel together. He was travelling on his own, so he was in material breach of that condition. However, there may be an argument that he wasn't seeking material gain by travelling alone.

But what is that argument? He says that had he known 3 months in advance that the other person would not be travelling, he could have bought a ticket for himself for just £61, whereas he had paid £79.20.

But the whole point is that he didn't know in advance. He just suddenly found himself in possession of tickets he couldn't use without breaching the conditions of the railcard. He is not the first person to suddenly find themselves holding advance tickets they can't actually use, nor the first to have to "pay twice" should they travel anyway.

The "material gain" argument is spurious. Even if the tickets he had already purchased and unable to use had been refundable without a fee (and they specifically aren't) he would not have been in a position, at the last minute, to purchase the £61 advance tickets he refers to.

The article doesn't say whether Mr Dunne made any enquiries before travelling as he did. Everything suggests he didn't, but just decided for himself that the railcard conditions shouldn't apply to him. He really only has himself to blame for falling foul of those conditions.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

How are you using the word "materially"?

The conditions for use of the railcard say that both persons must travel together. He was travelling on his own, so he was in material breach of that condition. However, there may be an argument that he wasn't seeking material gain by travelling alone.

But what is that argument? He says that had he known 3 months in advance that the other person would not be travelling, he could have bought a ticket for himself for just £61, whereas he had paid £79.20.

But the whole point is that he didn't know in advance. He just suddenly found himself in possession of tickets he couldn't use without breaching the conditions of the railcard. He is not the first person to suddenly find themselves holding advance tickets they can't actually use, nor the first to have to "pay twice" should they travel anyway.

The "material gain" argument is spurious. Even if the tickets he had already purchased and unable to use had been refundable without a fee (and they specifically aren't) he would not have been in a position, at the last minute, to purchase the £61 advance tickets he refers to.

The article doesn't say whether Mr Dunne made any enquiries before travelling as he did. Everything suggests he didn't, but just decided for himself that the railcard conditions shouldn't apply to him. He really only has himself to blame for falling foul of those conditions.

I don't think anyone but Mr Dunne can be blamed for the breach of the Railcard conditions. However, it is a question of what the appropriate response is.

 

[Silverdale]

I think common sense should be applied.

If two tickets priced at a third off are held but only one can travel and is holding both tickets, there's no loss to the railway.

It might appear that there is no loss, but the question which actually needs to be addressed is whether the Two Together railcard would be used differently if the terms were changed to allow optional solo travel if both discounted tickets were purchased?

The calculation that customers make when purchasing an advance ticket depends how certain they can be ahead of time, that they will actually travel. The conditions of the Two Together railcard currently say that calculation has to be done for both parties travelling together. If the conditions were changed, it would add a degree of flexibility to the advances as only one party would have to have the certainty required to make buying the pair of discounted tickets a worthwhile (for them) risk versus buying full price tickets.

That extra flexibility for Two Together customers would mean they would tend to buy fewer full price advance tickets and that would translate into a loss for the TOC.

 

[najaB]

I don't think anyone but Mr Dunne can be blamed for the breach of the Railcard conditions. However, it is a question of what the appropriate response is.

I think it depends on whether Mr Dunne spoke with staff before travel or chanced it and got caught. In the former case he should have been allowed travel, in the latter then there's no reason he should expect any different treatment than anyone else found without a valid ticket.

 

[Silverdale]

I don't think anyone but Mr Dunne can be blamed for the breach of the Railcard conditions. However, it is a question of what the appropriate response is.

Based on the facts as disclosed, Mr Dunne hasn't been treated particularly harshly. A person travelling on the same train from Carlisle to London, but with an advance ticket for an earlier train (and no connection/delay issues) would similarly have been required to purchase a new, full fare, unrestricted ticket to their destination when their ticket was checked on the train.

I don't think that's inappropriate, given that Mr Dunne should have been aware that the conditions of the advance ticket/railcard meant that at the time he travelled, the ticket he actually held was just a worthless piece of paper. If he wasn't aware, he didn't bother to enquire before setting out on his excursion and even after being told by the first conductor he would "have problems" he continued to try and "wing it". At Carlisle he had the opportunity to avoid the £150 fare by purchasing a restricted (Off-Peak, Super Off-Peak, etc) ticket for the train he was actually going to travel on, or to choose not to travel at all, but he didn't.

 

[si404]

Based on the facts as disclosed, Mr Dunne hasn't been treated particularly harshly.

He's been treated as the Conditions of Carriage said he would be. That is your only justification for why the treatment was justified in this case - however, just because the rules exist, doesn't mean they aren't harsh.

The first conductor certainly felt the rules harsh, despite understanding them, and why they exist (it's their job after all) - hence they didn't enforce them. If the first conductor could have sold Mr Dunne a full whack ticket, but reduced the price by the cost of one of the two other tickets (or even both) for that train not being used, then Virgin wouldn't have walked into this bad PR. And perhaps the second conductor might have done similar, though it sounds like they have a reputation for Vogonish devotion to enforcement.

And if the second conductor didn't exist, Virgin would have got a good PR story spreading by word of mouth - "it was explained why I had broken the rules, but they showed some compassion to my plight when they were entitled to £150 off me." After all, this isn't a worthwhile scam as it costs more than just buying a ticket for one.

A person travelling on the same train from Carlisle to London, but with an advance ticket for an earlier train (and no connection/delay issues) would similarly have been required to purchase a new, full fare, unrestricted ticket to their destination when their ticket was checked on the train.

And again, many people would see that as rather harsh, given the inability to cancel advance tickets, including some that understand why Advance tickets can't be transferable. Though there is the possibility of a legit scam here, unlike the situation this thread is about.

Again, some sort of accounting for the cost already paid to the TOC for travel, while still penalising the customer for not following the conditions of carriage, would be seen as fair, not harsh. Though this situation actually could cost the TOC revenue (as the ticket for the previous train might have stopped a fare being sold for it, plus busier/quieter peak/off-peak train issues), so perhaps not the full costs.

 

[jthjth]

Would he have been able to convert one of his tickets to the non railcard discounted fare by paying the difference at a ticket office before travel?

 

[island]

Would he have been able to convert one of his tickets to the non railcard discounted fare by paying the difference at a ticket office before travel?

Staff instructions are that a Railcard-discounted ticket is not to be excesses to a non-discounted ticket. The capability does exist to do such an excess on ticket issuing systems, and some staff do sell them.

 

[Dan_Lockton]

Hypothetically, if two people bought Two Together tickets together, but then when it comes to travelling, they've fallen out with each other, or — let's say, they argue on the train, and one person leaves at an intermediate station (ignoring how that stopping short is forbidden by the Advance) — before the tickets are checked, then the remaining person is, I suppose, no longer holding a valid ticket, but when exactly did the "breach" occur? Does the non-travelling (or alighting) passenger have any responsibility? Or is it entirely down to the person left?

Maybe it's an unlikely scenario, but not that unlikely.

 

[PeterC]

The trouble with expecting staff to show "discretion" when it comes to the application of clearly published terms and conditions is that there is always the risk of other factors coming in to play to decide who benefits and who doesn't. If one person has discretion shown but the person in the next seat doesn't then there is always the risk of allegations of prejudice because of some visible difference such as skin colour.

 

[mmh]

This section of the forum is so marvellously Kafkaesque at times - not just for all the examples of the railway behaving stupidly but for the guarantee people will defend it, after all rules are rules!

 

[mmh]

Though there is the possibility of a legit scam here, unlike the situation this thread is about.

How? I'm struggling to think how you could buy a pair of tickets with a third discount, hold both of them and be paying less than just buying one undiscounted ticket. Even if they're advances and say they're different fares, e.g. one was the last sold for 5 pounds the other was 10 pounds, there's no benefit. Perhaps a return, the second passenger could travel with the first, but not on their own as they'd still need both tickets (and their own railcard). As hypothetical situations go it seems pretty far fetched.

Though this situation actually could cost the TOC revenue (as the ticket for the previous train might have stopped a fare being sold for it, plus busier/quieter peak/off-peak train issues), so perhaps not the full costs.

Um, the fare has already been sold, they already have the revenue regardless of whether or not the passenger travels.

 

[etr221]

Hypothetically, if two people bought Two Together tickets together, but then when it comes to travelling, they've fallen out with each other, or — let's say, they argue on the train, and one person leaves at an intermediate station (ignoring how that stopping short is forbidden by the Advance) — before the tickets are checked, then the remaining person is, I suppose, no longer holding a valid ticket, but when exactly did the "breach" occur? Does the non-travelling (or alighting) passenger have any responsibility? Or is it entirely down to the person left?

Maybe it's an unlikely scenario, but not that unlikely.

Or if they both continue on the train, but in different coaches?

 

[si404]

How? I'm struggling to think how you could buy a pair of tickets with a third discount, hold both of them and be paying less than just buying one undiscounted ticket.

Read the post - I was discussing a different scenario where an Advance for a different train had been bought that was seen as equivalent by Silverdale but really isn't.

Um, the fare has already been sold, they already have the revenue regardless of whether or not the passenger travels.

But in this hypothetical, I'm talking about the unused ticket being used as credit towards a ticket on the train actually travelled on - unlike the original scenario, that could realistically mean the TOC losing money due to taking up two seats, but only paying for one.

That said, many would still view it fairly harsh to get someone to pay twice for one journey (rather than once, without discount, due to the change in circumstance) unless the customer is clearly to blame.

 

[The Ham]

I have a question, what is the purpose of the must travel together rule?

I would interpretate it is to stop people traveling at separate times and gaining a discount, or more to the point stop people from buying one ticket on a discount.

As such, although he technically breached the conditions, by traveling with both discounted tickets both guards should have been understanding and not charged him the extra £150.

Alternatively just lie. Say your friend is in the loo and hope the guard leaves you alone for the rest of the trip.

 

[The Ham]

Or if they both continue on the train, but in different coaches?

Technically under the strict reading of the rules of one goes to the loo or the buffet car leasing the other in their seat they other are both in beach and should be fined!

 

[Harpers Tate]

As is so often the case, many do not appreciate the sometimes massive difference between being "in the right" and being "right". In the case described, clearly and unambiguously the traincrew on the second train were absolutely "in the right".

However, it ought to be incumbent upon all public facing staff to go beyond this and consider a larger picture. From a financial perspective, comparing what happened before the application of the excess fare* vs. EITHER (a) the other passenger travelled or (b) the sole passenger booked for himself alone in the first place, the impacts are:
(a) zero additional revenue and a small DEcrease in marginal cost (so - marginally in the TOCs favour)
(b) reduced revenue and no difference in costs.
In other words the TOC lost absolutely nothing in either case.

And then a financial penalty* is levied on the passenger.
At which point, the TOC is in receipt of some more money (to which it is entitled, yes) and some entirely justified very bad press. It's hard to put a value on bad press, but it's certainly the case that on occasions, TOCs have been known to reverse and refund such charges. (I vaguely recall an East Coast advance customer alighting early at Durham or somewhere, being charged a full single fare costing over £100; it making the news, and the TOC refunding him).

The thing is - the bad press remains after the revenue has been refunded (and thereby lost).

And therefore, the entirely in the right employee has cost his emplyer money and good will. And that is surely not right.

==============================
* I use these terms in the broadest dictionary sense

 

[Wallsendmag]

Staff instructions are that a Railcard-discounted ticket is not to be excesses to a non-discounted ticket. The capability does exist to do such an excess on ticket issuing systems, and some staff do sell them.

That certainly doesn't apply for the company i work for.

 

[najaB]

As is so often the case, many do not appreciate the sometimes massive difference between being "in the right" and being "right".

I think most posters to this thread understand the difference. Pretty much everyone agrees that the TOC was in the right. If it was the right thing to charge a second fare depends on facts that aren't in evidence - we don't know either the content or tenor of the interaction between Mr Dunne and the member of staff. Absent that information, we are just going to go round and round the mulberry bushes.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think most posters to this thread understand the difference. Pretty much everyone agrees that the TOC was in the right. If it was the right thing to charge a second fare depends on facts that aren't in evidence - we don't know either the content or tenor of the interaction between Mr Dunne and the member of staff. Absent that information, we are just going to go round and round the mulberry bushes.

I don't think the content or tenor of the interaction has anything to do with it, personally. IMO you should not have to 'pass an attitude test' so as not to be penalised for exercising only part of your contractual rights (with a penalty that I think might be considered unenforceable and/or unlawful).

 

[najaB]

I don't think the content or tenor of the interaction has anything to do with it, personally.

As we're agreed that the TOC was 'in the right' to charge a second fare, I think the manner in which any interactions were conducted makes a huge difference considering that Mr Dunne was asking someone to bend the rules.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

As we're agreed that the TOC was 'in the right' to charge a second fare, I think the manner in which any interactions were conducted makes a huge difference considering that Mr Dunne was asking someone to bend the rules.

If you approach it from the standpoint that the customer is wrong then yes, you're going to get nowhere unless you are courteous. However I don't think what Mr Dunne did was really wrong - he had caused no loss to the TOC (in fact, he had paid more than he would have if he had booked just to travel alone).

I think a lot of people get hung up about the fact that he was in breach of the Railcard terms and hence had no valid ticket. Be this as it may, it was not as if he had just gotten on another random train other than his booked one. He was substantially in compliance with his ticket terms - and his breach was one that was beneficial, if anything, to the TOC (as one less person was using the First Class facilities!). To then penalise the passenger is a very disappointing attitude and I find it difficult to see how encouraging said penalisation can be justified.

If the rail industry wants to get a better reputation then they need to change their policy stop doing things like this. They need to train staff on the new policy. And then they need to penalise staff who subsequently still get it wrong, and compensate the passenger.

 

[najaB]

If you approach it from the standpoint that the customer is wrong then yes, you're going to get nowhere unless you are courteous. However I don't think what Mr Dunne did was really wrong - he had caused no loss to the TOC (in fact, he had paid more than he would have if he had booked just to travel alone).

I'm not saying he was wrong, just that he was in the wrong wrt the T&Cs.

 

[Coolzac]

I think that the purpose of rules is to stop people gaining an unfair advantage. As there is no unfair advantage of buying two tickets with a railcard as opposed to buying one without a railcard, the t and C's should be changed to ensure that passengers holding both tickets are entitled to travel alone on the occasion where someone can't travel.

Can anyone think of a scenario where passengers could unfairly benefit from my propsed change?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think that the purpose of rules is to stop people gaining an unfair advantage. As there is no unfair advantage of buying two tickets with a railcard as opposed to buying one without a railcard, the t and C's should be changed to ensure that passengers holding both tickets are entitled to travel alone on the occasion where someone can't travel.

Can anyone think of a scenario where passengers could unfairly benefit from my propsed change?

If it were rolled out across all Railcards then users of the Family Railcard would be able to pay less than the undiscounted adult fare if they bought a Family Railcard discounted adult + child fare (which, excepting rounding, is only 96% of the adult fare). So I think it would only be necessary, and appropriate to roll it out across the Two Together Railcard, where I agree that as long as both tickets and the Railcard are held, one or the other passenger should be able to travel alone.

 

[najaB]

So I think it would only be necessary, and appropriate to roll it out across the Two Together Railcard, where I agree that as long as both tickets and the Railcard are held, one or the other passenger should be able to travel alone.

That is a perfectly sensible change to make.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I'd go for
...as long as the fare(s) actually paid are equal to or greater than the fare(s) that would have been paid. Becuase that is the crux of it; a no loss and therefore no potential fraud or evasion scenario.