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

[The Ham]

I'm going to be honest, but with an opening gambit like that I really can't take this post too seriously. We all know what the T&Cs mean, and it doesn't mean they have to be strapped into their seats and not move, go to the loo, buffet etc. Pedantry like that brings nothing helpful to the discussion.

If a gaurd finds someone walking through a train with a two together ticket with no evidence of another person they shouldn't be charged a penalty? As how many gaurds are going to be bothered to go looking for the outer passenger on a busy train with more than 5 coaches?

Nice loophole, if that's the case...

 

[Bantamzen]

If a gaurd finds someone walking through a train with a two together ticket with no evidence of another person they shouldn't be charged a penalty? As how many gaurds are going to be bothered to go looking for the outer passenger on a busy train with more than 5 coaches?

Nice loophole, if that's the case...

Well the first stage would be to apply some common sense, a guard doesn't necessarily have to go looking for the second passenger, just come back in a bit and see if passenger two has returned. Unless the train is really heavily loaded, and in excess of 5 coaches then it really won't be an issue in the vast majority of cases. But of course that loophole if tried could land someone with an extra charge such as being discussed, so that in itself will act as a deterrent. So the loophole is effectively closed unless someone was particularly lucky.

 

[some bloke]

looking for the outer passenger on a busy train

Reminds me of George Carlin:

"They always say "you may now get on the plane".
F*** you! I'm getting IN the plane!"

 

[The Ham]

Well the first stage would be to apply some common sense, a guard doesn't necessarily have to go looking for the second passenger, just come back in a bit and see if passenger two has returned. Unless the train is really heavily loaded, and in excess of 5 coaches then it really won't be an issue in the vast majority of cases. But of course that loophole if tried could land someone with an extra charge such as being discussed, so that in itself will act as a deterrent. So the loophole is effectively closed unless someone was particularly lucky.

Given how often tickets are checked I would suggest that they would be particularly unlikely to get caught.

 

[Bantamzen]

Given how often tickets are checked I would suggest that they would be particularly unlikely to get caught.

That's an enforcement issue for TOCs to resolve. I do agree that ticket checks can be sporadic at best on some TOCs, be that through non-enforcement or simply trains being too full, and applies to all people trying to get away with no or invalid tickets. Most honest punters however would not take the chance, especially if they were able to make a change to a Two Together where they know that only one will ravel in advance.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Theirs been a trend recently for a handful of posters to wade in to each and every thread with the view that the TOC's are wrong and you can go to court and challenge what they say - however there is no supporting evidence that can be supplied that this approach will work. I note you cite non rail related cases above!

The same laws apply to railway contracts as to any other kind of contracts! Hence it is irrelevant what the case itself is about - it is about the principle behind it. Is there any case you had in mind which rebuts the Supreme Court predecedent the argument is based on? It is always possible to challenge the TOCs where they are treating consumers unfairly (at an informal complaints/press level) - it is merely a question of whether the challenge could be justified at Court and whether it is therefore worthwhile considering that option.

Until such time that the consequences of this type of approach can be demonstrated I would suggest that posting comments that can be interpreted as encouraging the OP in the Disputes and Prosecutions section to "go to court" should be banned.

If the suggestion is never made then there never will be any of the cases you want to see as proof! The Small Claims Track of the County Court has limited costs both ways, so you are not taking a big financial gamble even if you do lose. I see nothing wrong, therefore, with suggesting the possibility - it is always up to the OP (insofar as there actually is one!) whether they want to take up the suggestion, and some OPs may not even consider the possibility if it is not mentioned.

Can I ask what practical measures you have taken to address issues like this apart from posting on rail forums?

I have taken several companies to County Court where they have breached a contract or the law. It has not yet happened to me in the railway context (or rather, where it has, it has been resolved amicably). If or when an issue occurs and amicable attempts to resolve it fail, I would not hesitate to take the relevant TOC to County Court, and I would certainly not be wasting my time with with Transport Focus, or pleading the case with my MP, both of which are all too often entirely fruitless approaches.

As it happens my business submission to current the RDG Fares Consultation had something in it that would have seen this scenario impossible to replicate (though not intended to specifically address it)

I look forward to a positive reform of the fares system. Unfortunately I very much doubt it will happen!

 

[Gareth Marston]

The same laws apply to railway contracts as to any other kind of contracts! Hence it is irrelevant what the case itself is about - it is about the principle behind it. Is there any case you had in mind which rebuts the Supreme Court predecedent the argument is based on? It is always possible to challenge the TOCs where they are treating consumers unfairly (at an informal complaints/press level) - it is merely a question of whether the challenge could be justified at Court and whether it is therefore worthwhile considering that option.


If the suggestion is never made then there never will be any of the cases you want to see as proof! The Small Claims Track of the County Court has limited costs both ways, so you are not taking a big financial gamble even if you do lose. I see nothing wrong, therefore, with suggesting the possibility - it is always up to the OP (insofar as there actually is one!) whether they want to take up the suggestion, and some OPs may not even consider the possibility if it is not mentioned.

I hope to see these caveats appear in future especially from some of the more vehement members.

I look forward to a positive reform of the fares system. Unfortunately I very much doubt it will happen!

A lot of the problems we see here arise as a by product of the complexity which is driven by the TOC's and Government trying to "farm" revenue as solution to the cost rises since privatization. Hopefully falling passengers numbers and revenue will shake them.

 

[30907]

My instinct is to say that discretion should have been shown, and that guidance similar to that about starting/finishing short on Advance tickets should be issued.

However, although several posters have claimed it is impossible and no-one has shown otherwise , there IS a situation where one person using a Two Together railcard could gain a substantial advantage; it applies to walk-up fares only:
if person 1 is making a return journey but person 2 a single, then a Two Together return will always be cheaper than two undiscounted tickets.
The maximum saving is where the Single is priced just below the Return, which is extremely common: the Railcard fare will offer a saving of nearly 1/3. (1.32r instead of 2r-d, where d = r-s).
If you allow discretion, as many have suggested before me, then you create a loophole.
And before you say this is a rare occurrence, I wonder how many people do a return trip to the airport, ferry or St Pancras to meet someone or see them off and help with their baggage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course, though a bit OT, that needs solving by getting rid of that ridiculous approach to single ticket pricing.

 

[The Ham]

My instinct is to say that discretion should have been shown, and that guidance similar to that about starting/finishing short on Advance tickets should be issued.

However, although several posters have claimed it is impossible and no-one has shown otherwise , there IS a situation where one person using a Two Together railcard could gain a substantial advantage; it applies to walk-up fares only:
if person 1 is making a return journey but person 2 a single, then a Two Together return will always be cheaper than two undiscounted tickets.
The maximum saving is where the Single is priced just below the Return, which is extremely common: the Railcard fare will offer a saving of nearly 1/3. (1.32r instead of 2r-d, where d = r-s).
If you allow discretion, as many have suggested before me, then you create a loophole.
And before you say this is a rare occurrence, I wonder how many people do a return trip to the airport, ferry or St Pancras to meet someone or see them off and help with their baggage.

However the suggestion is that the traveller would need to hold two (otherwise) valid tickets, meaning that a single and a return wouldn't count.

 

[Haywain]

However the suggestion is that the traveller would need to hold two (otherwise) valid tickets, meaning that a single and a return wouldn't count.

To achieve the objective they simply buy 2 return tickets, the person trravelling one way still saves over the price of the single.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Indeed, in your example, Person 1 on their return would hold a 2together R/Card and one valid ticket, unlike this case, where they hold both valid discounted tickets.

In my opinion, in this case, if the TM has marked both tickets as used by stamping or clipping etc etc. then there's no way the passenger could have used either ticket again and gained an advantage.

On the flip side, technically, the tickets weren't valid, so being sold a new one was correct.

Yes the rules around railcards need to be enforced to prevent misuse, but in this case, I don't see how the passenger gained anything personally by using his ticket, and presenting the other ticket.

Something needs to be done, as if I bought a 16-25 discounted ticket and didn't have my railcard, I can buy, as in this case, a full priced new ticket and get it refunded on presentation of my rail card (or, it may be a refund on the unused ticket, I cannot remember, someone I am sure will correct me)
You cannot do the same here, you cannot present person 2 after the fact to prove those tickets would have been valid, I don't quite think it works the same way. So there needs to be an allowance for situations like his where the tickets have been bought with true intentions and things happen that prevent the 2nd traveller travelling. Even if that is a way to do as you can do with 16-25 and Senior railcards, or being able to excess the difference between a R/card and non-railcard ticket. But there does need to be a deterrent to allowing to excess when challenged, or anyone would just buy a cheaper ticket and pay the difference if questioned without penalty

 

[Haywain]

Indeed, in your example, Person 1 on their return would hold a 2together R/Card and one valid ticket, unlike this case, where they hold both valid discounted tickets.

Not the case if 2 return tickets had been purchased (for example, 2 x Off Peak Return) and both were held, alongside a Two Together Railcard, by the one passenger returning.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Not the case if 2 return tickets had been purchased (for example, 2 x Off Peak Return) and both were held, alongside a Two Together Railcard, by the one passenger returning.

Indeed, however the post did say one return one single - in reality yes they'd both buy returns

 

[mmh]

However, although several posters have claimed it is impossible and no-one has shown otherwise , there IS a situation where one person using a Two Together railcard could gain a substantial advantage; it applies to walk-up fares only:
if person 1 is making a return journey but person 2 a single, then a Two Together return will always be cheaper than two undiscounted tickets.
The maximum saving is where the Single is priced just below the Return, which is extremely common: the Railcard fare will offer a saving of nearly 1/3. (1.32r instead of 2r-d, where d = r-s).
If you allow discretion, as many have suggested before me, then you create a loophole.
And before you say this is a rare occurrence, I wonder how many people do a return trip to the airport, ferry or St Pancras to meet someone or see them off and help with their baggage.

In theory it shouldn't be possible to buy a single and a return with a Two Together railcard though. (As in another recent thread it is possible for tickets to be sold incorrectly discounted though)

 

[Bletchleyite]

In theory it shouldn't be possible to buy a single and a return with a Two Together railcard though. (As in another recent thread it is possible for tickets to be sold incorrectly discounted though)

It's niche, but would it be valid to travel the two halves of a return with two different people on two different Railcards?

 

[Haywain]

It's niche, but would it be valid to travel the two halves of a return with two different people on two different Railcards?

If I follow your meaning, the answer has to be no as that would simply be two people travelling each with one discounted ticket and without the second person. For two tickets bought with a Two Together Railcard to be valid they must hold one railcard that carries photographs of both of them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If I follow your meaning, the answer has to be no as that would simply be two people travelling each with one discounted ticket and without the second person. For two tickets bought with a Two Together Railcard to be valid they must hold one railcard that carries photographs of both of them.

I think the meaning is more:

• three people (A, B and C)
• Person A and B have a two together railcard, and B and C have one (so B is covered on two railcards)
• Between them all, they have two returns, both with the railcard discount
• On the outward journey, person A travels with person B.
• On the return journey person C travels with person B.

There you have 3 people, making 3 different journeys, with only one persons journey being a return one.
So in theory A and C should be buying full price singles and B should be buying a full price return.
But for the cost of an additional railcard, they could just buy two railcard discounted returns. When you considering the railcard discount for some journeys can be more than the cost of the railcard itself, and that buying a single in many instances is barely any cheaper than buying a return, doing something like that could be worth it. Although as stated in the original comment, that is very very niche a case! Very much an edge case not worth worrying about using my software development brain!

Apologies if I misunderstood Bletchleyite!

 

[some bloke]

It's niche, but would it be valid to travel the two halves of a return with two different people on two different Railcards?

I understand this to mean a person travelling with a companion one way (with a railcard valid for both) and with someone else the other way (with a railcard valid for both).

The answer seems to be no:

"2.3. The Railcard and tickets bought with it are not transferable to anyone else"
https://www.twotogether-railcard.co.uk/help/terms-conditions/

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, that's correct. I assumed not - but equally it seems rather difficult to enforce.

 

[some bloke]

3 people, making 3 different journeys, with only one persons journey being a return one.

it seems rather difficult to enforce.

WelshBluebird made a more fundamental point using logic than I did with a fact.

There would seem to be a general enforcement problem if the two halves of a return are used by different people.

 

[185143]

Common sense really should apply...

Has the passenger avoided paying a higher fare? Nope. He's paid more than the cost of an undiscounted ticket.

Are both tickets and railcard present? Yes.

Therefore I feel it really should have been accepted. I too would like to see what a courtroom would make of this case-there seems to be no reasonable grounds (except "cos thems the rules") for Virgin to ask for £150...

 

[BluePenguin]

Common sense really should apply...

Has the passenger avoided paying a higher fare? Nope. He's paid more than the cost of an undiscounted ticket.

Are both tickets and railcard present? Yes.

Therefore I feel it really should have been accepted. I too would like to see what a courtroom would make of this case-there seems to be no reasonable grounds (except "cos thems the rules") for Virgin to ask for £150...

I agree that is should have been accepted. Virgin are notorious on here for over changing and well known for not showing discretion so it is not a surprise really that this has happened. However I would love to know what Judge Rinder would have to say to about all of this. It bet it would go something like this:

"Now you have to prove to me in law that you had a legally binding contract. There is no doubt in my mind that you met the conditions of the contract you had with Virgin Trains. This court awards you £150"

 

[30907]

Indeed, however the post did say one return one single - in reality yes they'd both buy returns

No, I said one return and one single journey, using a 2T return. I was assuming that person 1 would keep both tickets for the journey when they were alone.
Haywain has read my original post correctly.

 

[30907]

Yes, that's correct. I assumed not - but equally it seems rather difficult to enforce.

Your example was identical to a journey I and two of my adult children actually made over the weekend from Shipley to Kettering. AC 1 and I travelled on Friday morning, but no.2 was at work (and needed a flexible ticket). On Monday evening both offspring had to return for work next morning, whereas I am retired and travelled on Tuesday.
So if no.1 had access to two railcards for whatever reason, each of us would have benefited from the discount, and I think this is allowed by condition 2.3.

(We didn't actually do the trip by rail anyway, because we had 2 tents and other stuff, but that's not the point - the journeys actually happened as described.)

 

[some bloke]

AC 1 and I travelled on Friday...On Monday evening both offspring had to return for work next morning, whereas I...travelled on Tuesday.
So if no.1 had access to two railcards for whatever reason, each of us would have benefited from the discount, and I think this is allowed by condition 2.3.

It's allowed if you all buy singles.

Would it be valid for one person to use a return, with a different single-carrying companion each way? Studying the various public information might give an answer.

 

[30907]

It's allowed if you all buy singles.

Can't see the need to buy singles, unless the 2T tickets carry "only valid with card 123456."

 

[kristiang85]

Maybe the railcard should include a one-off discretionary 'pass' for this kind of happening, e.g. a box a guard stamps/punches once it has been used once with the second person missing. Surely its unlikely there will be a sudden illness or unavailability to travel twice in one year between the same two people.

 

[talltim]

As @some bloke has helpfully pointed out above, even if you delve into the terms and conditions of the Railcard - those same terms that allegedly entitle the train companies, on paper, to charge passengers extortionate penalties for saving them money - the consequences of failing to have both passengers present is far from clear.

A charge of £150 can in no way be said to constitute a "genuine pre-estimate of loss", which is ordinarily all that is recoverable when one party breaches a contract. It must therefore be justified as a sum in liquidated damages, i.e. an agreed contractual penalty. Contractual penalties, certainly in the business-to-consumer world, are limited in their permissibility and enforceability, with ParkingEye v Beavis being the (current) leading case in what is enforceable and what is not. I encourage everyone who is interested in this matter to read the judgment in full here, or at the very least the press summary here.

For one, contractual penalties must have a legitimate justification for existing - for example in the ParkingEye case it was to disincentivise use of a retail car park by commuters (who would then lead to fewer spaces being available for legitimate shoppers). No such justification can be said to apply to the present case - it is a case of benefitting the train company by one passenger not turning up.

But even if we assume the first hurdle is somehow passed, the second test is whether the contractual penalty was made amply clear to the consumer. It must be specifically spelled out and not just in some small print where no-one would expect it. (This is also the case through Lord Denning's so-called "Red Hand Rule"). When, exactly, when buying a ticket will any customer be told the penalty, in pounds and pence, for travelling without the other passenger? In my experience, and I am pretty sure in that of most forum members and members of the public, you will never be told this. It is all a far cry from the signage ParkingEye used in the aforementioned case, which can be viewed here.

I struggle to see how a contractual penalty of £150 can therefore be held as enforceable, because it flagrantly fails the key two tests for enforceability. The railway really needs to have a long, hard think about what they are going to do in order to make their penalties enforceable (i.e. legitimise their application, and inform/warn passengers of them when buying) - or whether they are going to drop them.

The fact that an argument such as this has not been used in the specific context of railways (or at least not that I am aware of) does not mean it is not valid. If you follow the argument I have given it is an inescapable conclusion that the £150 charge made by VTWC in this case is unenforceable, and that all such similar charges also are. Rejecting this conclusion out of hand is, in my view, a sign that one is unwilling to even entertain the possibility that the institution of "the railway" could ever lie in the wrong.

The point you seem to have missed is that the £150 wasn’t a penalty for not following the terms of the railcard. It was the price of a (valid) ticket that they didn’t have.
Whether that is right morally is a different matter, but legally it was two separate transactions that are only related by being between the same parties.
An actual ‘penalty’ on the first transaction could be an excess, a penalty fare or prosecution depending on circumstances.

 

[30907]

Maybe the railcard should include a one-off discretionary 'pass' for this kind of happening, e.g. a box a guard stamps/punches once it has been used once with the second person missing. Surely its unlikely there will be a sudden illness or unavailability to travel twice in one year between the same two people.

That's a good idea, and could apply to other railcards.
Alternatively, the non-railcard fare could be paid and then refunded (in full, without having to produce evidence!); handling this centrally would allow repeated use of the loophole I have described to be identified.