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

[Coolzac]

That is a perfectly sensible change to make.

Yes, that was the change I was suggesting. I think it is common sense- the train company isn't losing out and the passenger doesn't get unfairly punished.

 

[najaB]

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.

The problem with that is determining what 'would have been paid' when Advances are involved.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That is a perfectly sensible change to make.

It would even be something that could be used as good PR - e.g. "Bought tickets with a Two Together Railcard? Don't worry if your travel companion can't make it - you can still travel alone with both tickets and the Railcard"

 

[Mag_seven]

Why don't we just have a national railcard that anyone can buy (like the Bahn Card in Germany)?

 

[PeterC]

Why don't we just have a national railcard that anyone can buy (like the Bahn Card in Germany)?

Because we haven't done it in the past so our way must be better.

 

[Fiyero]

This is the worry I have for an upcoming journey (and the reason for my thread in the fare advice column). I have booked and paid for us both to travel on two together railcard discounted advance tickets. If my friend doesn't come my ticket isn't valid either and my only choice is to buy a full price ticket (the advances are all either all gone or not cheap enough to be worth it now).
I understand why there are rules but if I travel with both tickets I think that should be valid!

 

[najaB]

I understand why there are rules but if I travel with both tickets I think that should be valid!

I don't disagree, but there is a world of difference between 'should be valid' and 'is valid'.

 

[Fiyero]

I don't disagree, but there is a world of difference between 'should be valid' and 'is valid'.

I know, hence me researching what alternative ticket I need if my friend can't come

 

[mmh]

The problem with that is determining what 'would have been paid' when Advances are involved.

It shouldn't be a problem. It's impossible to buy two tickets with a third off and pay less than buying one undiscounted ticket, advances included.

 

[Coolzac]

It shouldn't be a problem. It's impossible to buy two tickets with a third off and pay less than buying one undiscounted ticket, advances included.

Exactly.

 

[najaB]

It shouldn't be a problem. It's impossible to buy two tickets with a third off and pay less than buying one undiscounted ticket, advances included.

I'm not convinced that you can make that blanket statement.

 

[mmh]

I'm not convinced that you can make that blanket statement.

It's simple mathematics, surely?

 

[najaB]

It's simple mathematics, surely?

One thing I've learned is that there's nothing simple where ticketing is concerned! I can't remember at the moment but I get the feeling that I made the same argument previously and someone came up with a scenario that broke the general rule.

 

[175mph]

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.

My luck would be the guard hangs around near me until they realise I'm lying or hammer on the toilet door demanding that my (non-existent) friend comes out immediately.

 

[Starmill]

I really question exactly what some members are hoping to achieve here.

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.

Even this is wrong.

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.

What a load of nonsense.

 

[mmh]

I'm still wanting someone to explain how (2x * 2/3) can be less than x, and what "scam" it would allow.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[AM9]

There is one issue that hasn't been mentioned and that is the issue of seat reservations. With problems finding unreserved seats as discussed in this thread:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...l-unreserved-coach.168651/page-2#post-3611155
Easing the rules could create even more problems. If Two Together railcard conditions were to be changed to allow a single person carrying both tickets to travel legitimately, those more prone to self-entitlement could use the marked seat reservations to prevent other passengers without reservations using the other seat when it was actually back in the vacant seat pool. The guard should remove any paper ticket but would they bother to unlock the seat if there was ano electronic display? Also, the passenger would be free to keep the seat empty for their own convenience until a guard arrived. That could be an issue when starting from a city terminus when the train would be at it's busiest.

 

[some bloke]

Perhaps a condition could require the passenger to remove any reservation label and allow others to use the seat.

Under current rules, the passenger must buy a new ticket. If they don't bother cancelling the two existing tickets, might there not be two unused seat reservations?

 

[etr221]

There is no difference from other situations in which a seat has been reserved for a passenger who doesn't travel...

But going back to the topic in general, if the railway sells tickets for two people to travel together, and - when it comes to it - only one of them can, is it better to allow that one person to travel (on both tickets) or say no, they are totally not valid and cannot be used.
I would say the former - the railway has its money, and avoids the minimal cost of carrying the missing person, and avoids the bad publicity and ill will of rejecting a ticket.

And consider the case of two pairs of Two Together travellers, with one person not travelling - you have three people making the same journey with the same tickets, but one (and only one) isn't valid - and imagine the headline: "Same tickets, but one is valid, one invalid"

 

[najaB]

I would say the former - the railway has its money, and avoids the minimal cost of carrying the missing person, and avoids the bad publicity and ill will of rejecting a ticket.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. However, that isn't what the current T&Cs say and no amount of hand waving on an Internet forum about 'should be' changes that unless someone with actual power happens to be reading? (He asks hopefully)

 

[70014IronDuke]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the TOCs involved, the headline is inaccurate (if that is the one The Times actually used)

"Forced to pay twice for a rail ticket"

Is not true: the passenger was forced to pay twice for two tickets, because the first was invalid.

 

[Romilly]

That is a perfectly sensible change to make.

It would also be sensible to make the same change for Groupsave: I know of situations where one member of the group has been ill leading up to the travel date and it's been uncertain whether they'd be fit to travel, so that to concern about their health was added worry about whether the other two members of the group would be able to travel even if they had all three tickets with them.

 

[kristiang85]

If you look at it in a retail example - you have one of those offers where you buy a £2 Sunday paper and get a £1.50 bottle of water for free. If the customer gave the shop £2 for a bottle of water, but didn't take the newspaper, I'm sure the shopkeeper would be more than happy. Certainly they wouldn't be calling it trying to defraud them. Its simple common sense.

Whilst against the Ts&Cs of the railcard, no 'theft' has taken place from the railway, in fact the railway has made more from this railcard in this scenario, so there shouldn't have been this action.

Especially as it was an advance ticket, its not like the other person is going to take advantage by getting a different train.

 

[Wallsendmag]

If he only showed his ticket how do we know that the second ticket wasn't changed to another service on another day?

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

Personally, I think those T&Cs need to change. The passenger is not saving money by travelling with both sets of tickets and the Railcard, so there is no sensible reason not to allow this. It's not like a Family and Friends Railcard where it might be *cheaper* than travelling without the child.

 

[some bloke]

If my friend doesn't come my ticket isn't valid either and my only choice is to buy a full price ticket

What's needed is a valid contract, which is provided if you get clear authorisation to travel. Perhaps you might:

- before you know whether your friend can travel, use Twitter or email the company, and then
- if/when you do know, go to a ticket office (ideally with that evidence) and ask. This might be useful:

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.

For authorisation in advance, it would seem plausible that companies are for the moment more likely to agree to an excess rather than use of some of the value of the unused ticket. Still, it may be worth asking for what seems fair.

The situation is not necessarily the same in practical terms of what companies will agree, as before the newspaper article appeared. And long shots sometimes work.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

As a holder of the Two Together I understand fully that I receive a 30% discount purely on the basis that I am booking travel for my wife and I and as part of the deal, we are expected to travel together. Quite how the railway industry should approach situations where one only one person travels is subject to this debate, but the bottom line is that the travelling passenger received a substantial discount and then did not keep their side of the agreement, which is effectively a breach of contract, making it null and void. Holders know this, or at least should and at the very least where it becomes obvious they cannot travel together seek the advice of the TOC rather than chance it then run to the media when they get stung (which is becoming the default position in society it seems).

Its not a case of being hung up on the details, this scheme exists solely to offer discounts to couples travelling together. Its not an ambiguous detail such as many with rail travel, its a clear and precise requirement. Pay your £30 per annum for the card, & use it to book discounted travel when you are to travel together.

And just to be clear, this is not in defence of TOCs but in defence of schemes like this. If people start to abuse these, or at least seek gain from negative publicity brought on by their own actions TOCs will start to move against these schemes, and frankly the current administration would not be too bothered about quietly shelving them. At the moment TOCs probably gain by getting more advance sales, and the associated revenue, and being able to manage both demand & the demand based pricing, which is why they tolerate them financially. If the rules were relaxed, this would almost certainly see moves against them which as I said would not necessarily be resisted too much by Whitehall.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If people start to abuse these

It's hard to suggest that someone travelling with both tickets and the Railcard is abusing anything. And the TOCs have brought the negative publicity on themselves by having such an incredibly silly policy.

The discount exists to attract people from cars. If I planned to go by car I don't have to pay extra if one person doesn't travel, I just have to pay the same fuel cost (near enough).

 

[Bantamzen]

It's hard to suggest that someone travelling with both tickets and the Railcard is abusing anything. And the TOCs have brought the negative publicity on themselves by having such an incredibly silly policy.

The discount exists to attract people from cars. If I planned to go by car I don't have to pay extra if one person doesn't travel, I just have to pay the same fuel cost (near enough).

I'm not suggesting the passenger in the original story deliberately planned to travel alone when booking, but travelling together is part of the deal that gives the discount. If people started to use them deliberately in this way, not only could it lead to people effectively giving themselves a couple of seats they could try to defend on busy journeys but could also lead to other passengers trying to get advance fares effectively being denied by people (and potentially businesses) simply booking up seats they have no intention of using, other than somewhere to store their laptop bags (for example).