Saving money by using non-obvious routes - is this legally / morally OK?

[jednick]

What are the opinions, either morally or legally, for saving money by using valid (but not obvious) routes to get somewhere a lot cheaper?


For example, for me to get to a well-known station, "X", it costs a certain amount. But If I buy a ticket to a certain other station where a valid (but non-obvious) route is to go via X, then I simply break my journey at X and I save 35%. I make sure break of journey is permitted, and I also make sure I have the itinerary emailed along with the ticket.


Another well-known station, "Y", costs a certain amount for a return (there are no day returns available). If I want a day trip to Y, I buy a ticket to a certain other station, costing just 40% of the return ticket to Y, where a valid (but less obvious) route is to change trains at Y. Then, I simply break my journey / end my journey short at Y. Once again, I make sure this route is 100% valid and I have an itinerary printed. I have done this many times with no problems, saving 60%.


Is this regarded as a deliberate ploy to deprive the train companies of money? Or, am I perfectly entitled to do this, as it is provable my ticket is valid every step of the way?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You are perfectly entitled to do this, but you may not want to post specific examples as they'll probably get "fixed".

 

[jednick]

You are perfectly entitled to do this, but you may not want to post specific examples as they'll probably get "fixed".

Thanks I will edit

 

[sprunt]

What would be the possible moral issue with entering into a contract and abiding by your obligations under that contract?

 

[The exile]

Isn’t there the potential “stopping/starting short on an advance” problem - or has that now been laid to rest?

 

[jednick]

Isn’t there the potential “stopping/starting short on an advance” problem - or has that now been laid to rest?

Yes. But this is regarding off-peak day return tickets

 

[yorksrob]

Valid is valid, end of story.

 

[Watershed]

Rail ticket revenue (with the exception of Open Access operators) ultimately all flows to the Treasury or devolved administrations. So those who buy tickets are effectively paying extra tax.

Minimising that tax could therefore be argued to constitute tax avoidance (i.e. lawfully reducing your tax burden). Many forms of tax avoidance are popular and even encouraged, e.g. using ISAs rather than taxable saving/investment accounts. It's entirely different from tax evasion, which is illegal and for which an apt comparison might be fare evasion.

I feel the government already gets plenty of tax from me, considering the comparatively poor public services I get in return, so I have no qualms about using fare 'loopholes' to legally engage in tax avoidance.

 

[infobleep]

My argument for a long time has been, it is legally allowed for train operating companies to increase the regulated ticket prices at popular stations, whilst increasing ing reglated ticket prices at at a lower rate for popular ones.

The effect is that on average ticket prices rise by the agreed average but the amount being paid by passengers doesn't increase by the average as the average isn't based on number fo tickets sold, just ticket types that can be sold.

Someone please correctly if if I have misunderstood and that is incorrect.

Given I believe what I say to be true, then I have no issue buying a cheaper ticket when a more expensive one is avilable and the more expensive one is the one most people would think to buy.

 

[CyrusWuff]

My argument for a long time has been, it is legally allowed for train operating companies to increase the regulated ticket prices at popular stations, whilst increasing ing reglated ticket prices at at a lower rate for popular ones.

The effect is that on average ticket prices rise by the agreed average but the amount being paid by passengers doesn't increase by the average as the average isn't based on number fo tickets sold, just ticket types that can be sold.

It was previously the case that TOCs could do just that, as long as the average increase across the entire fares "basket" didn't exceed the regulated increase.

So if the regulated increase was 4%, you could put one ticket up by 3% to allow you to put another up by 5%, for example.

At some point that changed, and the regulated increase is measured against individual products.

 

[akm]

Is this regarded as a deliberate ploy to deprive the train companies of money? Or, am I perfectly entitled to do this, as it is provable my ticket is valid every step of the way?

It's both!

As Lord Tomlin once put it, in the House of Lords no less,

Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.

 

[87 027]

Rail ticket revenue (with the exception of Open Access operators) ultimately all flows to the Treasury. So those who buy tickets are effectively paying extra tax.

It might feel like it, but where you have a choice to pay for something, officially it isn't technically regarded as a tax as you are getting a specific identifiable deliverable directly in exchange for your payment. Even where public goods and services are financed by charges (e.g. driving licences, passports) this is regarded as a substitute for taxation (or borrowing) as a means of government financing, rather than a form of it. See for example HMT Managing Public Money chapter 6

Managing public money

This publication offers guidance on how to handle public funds.

www.gov.uk

So in short by using loopholes in the routeing guide you are not engaged in tax avoidance!

(Incidentally HMRC do not regard schemes deliberately designed by Parliament to offer tax concessions as an incentive to save as 'tax avoidance'. It is using the tax system to encourage certain behaviours. For example HMRC regards ISAs as similar to pensions, so if anyone doesn't like tax avoidance and thinks ISAs are a form of avoidance, I hope they don't have a pension and instead put all their money in a standard savings account where tax is deducted at source.)

 

[AlterEgo]

What are the opinions, either morally or legally, for saving money by using valid (but not obvious) routes to get somewhere a lot cheaper?

Valid is valid, not sure where morals or the legal position come into it! Is it immoral or illegal to buy a cheap thing?

 

[Joe Paxton]

Valid is valid, not sure where morals or the legal position come into it! Is it immoral or illegal to buy a cheap thing?

For some cheap things, yeah it can be argued to be immoral... sourced from a sweatshop / forced labour for example.

 

[Haywain]

For some cheap things, yeah it can be argued to be immoral... sourced from a sweatshop / forced labour for example.

Or buying from a source where the goods are likely to have been obtained illegally.

 

[AlterEgo]

For some cheap things, yeah it can be argued to be immoral... sourced from a sweatshop / forced labour for example.

That’s because they’re using forced labour, not because they’re cheap.

 

[trainophile]

Similarly, if I make a journey by an indirect route and buy separate Advances for each leg, if one of the trains is cancelled or delayed resulting in reaching my first destination late, am I entitled to (a) take the next train by the same operator for the ticket I hold, and/or (b) claim delay repay on the eventual arrival time at final destination?

Example - Chester to Hereford via Liverpool. If I buy a ticket from Chester to Liverpool and another one from Liverpool to Hereford, if the first train is delayed/cancelled what is the position as regards taking the train after my booked one from Liverpool? Would they argue that I should have gone direct from Chester to Hereford as that is the obvious route? This is obviously an unorthodox route to take, but people have their reasons!

 

[Perosu1]

Similarly, if I make a journey by an indirect route and buy separate Advances for each leg, if one of the trains is cancelled or delayed resulting in reaching my first destination late, am I entitled to (a) take the next train by the same operator for the ticket I hold, and/or (b) claim delay repay on the eventual arrival time at final destination?

Example - Chester to Hereford via Liverpool. If I buy a ticket from Chester to Liverpool and another one from Liverpool to Hereford, if the first train is delayed/cancelled what is the position as regards taking the train after my booked one from Liverpool? Would they argue that I should have gone direct from Chester to Hereford as that is the obvious route? This is obviously an unorthodox route to take, but people have their reasons!

As long as your connection at your interchange station satisfies the minimum connection time (10 minutes at Liverpool lime street), if a delay on the first train makes you miss the next train, you are entitled to take the next train from the same company.
And you are entitled to delay repay in this circumstance as well.

 

[edwin_m]

Is it true that some fares are actively set to encourage split ticketing and divert people onto less busy trains? For example splitting at Worcestershire Parkway means people use the Cardiff trains which are usually less crowded than the Voyagers (and only a bit slower and in my view more comfortable).

 

[zero]

(Incidentally HMRC do not regard schemes deliberately designed by Parliament to offer tax concessions as an incentive to save as 'tax avoidance'. It is using the tax system to encourage certain behaviours. For example HMRC regards ISAs as similar to pensions, so if anyone doesn't like tax avoidance and thinks ISAs are a form of avoidance, I hope they don't have a pension and instead put all their money in a standard savings account where tax is deducted at source.)

Tax has not been deducted at source from "standard savings accounts" since 2016.

It is deducted at source from interest paid from certain investment structures, as well as from statutory interest paid as PPI misselling compensation.

 

[87 027]

My general point is that on these forums we are very keen to point out to general readers that there is a technical distinction between penalty fares, fines and out-of-court settlements. They are not the same, notwithstanding that revenue from TOCs (via fares, penalty fares and out of court settlements) and HMCTS might ultimately end up in the same overall government 'pot' aka the consolidated fund.

HMT central funds

This collection brings together the Consolidated Fund, the National Loans Fund, the Contingencies Fund and the Exchange Equalisation Account.

www.gov.uk

So in my view it is only fair that by the same token we recognise there are similar nuances and technicalities around the language of what does and doesn't constitute taxation and tax avoidance.

 

[talldave]

A ticket to somewhere you're not going is often cheaper than one to where you're going. Provided there are no restrictions that conflict with your desired schedule you'd be mad not to take the cheaper option. It's a business transaction, no morals involved!

In the same way that I often buy 2 smaller packs of something at the supermarket because it's cheaper than 1 large one due to their crazy/illogical offers. Less profit for the supermarket, more "toys" budget for me!

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it true that some fares are actively set to encourage split ticketing and divert people onto less busy trains? For example splitting at Worcestershire Parkway means people use the Cardiff trains which are usually less crowded than the Voyagers (and only a bit slower and in my view more comfortable).

No, fares anomalies are just that - anomalies. If CrossCountry wanted people to use the Cardiff trains they could simply release cheaper Advances, but as it is, their own site won’t sell the split you suggest is in their interests to use!