Should my daughter appeal this PFN,...

[snail]

What seems not to be noticed is that to make this money F.C.C.are spending more. As I stated, it's like spending a pound to make fifty pence.

Do you think everyone issued a PF appeals? I very much doubt it.

A sample of one is not significant.

 

[34D]

I mean, look at St Pancras International;

Approaching from the south: Ticket to St Pancras International required
Approaching from the north: Ticket to London Terminals required if travelling from Wellingborough or beyond or off line of route
Approaching from the north: Ticket to London Thameslink required if travelling from any station between Bedford and Kentish Town
Travelling north from STP: Ticket from London Terminals required regardless of destination
Travelling south from STP: Ticket from St Pancras International required

Surely Luton to St Panc would just be issued as London Terminals? Luton to London Thameslink being for destinations (from the north) Farringdon to London Bridge inc?

Looked at another way, one could conceive the main termini in London as forming a ring. Within that ring, I can think of only four mainline non-terminal stations. Of those, only Farringdon is not treated as a "London terminal"

Trying to imagine your ring.... I guess approximately the circle line plus waterloo? What station apart from city thameslink and farringdon are inside the ring (I'm assuming the ring on its south edge is victoria charing cross waterloo blackfriars london bridge cannon street fenchurch street?

Well said. I could understand someone making the mistake with St Pancras if travelling from the south, or - stretching the point - claiming that because their ticket is valid to St Pancras they can finish short at Farringdon.

On the majority of tickets such as Southampton to St Pancras LL break of journey at Farringdon would be allowed though. Don't understand your point? Or were you thinking of high speed?

The logic of 'London Terminals' is fine except for the Thameslink section. A simple solution would be not to accept any London Terminal tickets to Thameslink stations, but that would cause inconsistencies from places like Gatwick where you can travel to Victoria - an obvious 'Terminal' - or London Bridge (and beyond).

Maybe it will change under the next Thameslink franchise? Doubt it though.

 

[bb21]

Surely Luton to St Panc would just be issued as London Terminals? Luton to London Thameslink being for destinations (from the north) Farringdon to London Bridge inc?

For origins between Bedford (incl) and St Pancras (excl), destination London Terminals is not used in the case of walk-up fares. All tickets are issued to London Thameslink.

 

[RJ]

Indeed, when I bought split tickets in conjunction with the EM Rover, for that partition I asked for the ticket to have the destination "4452." Very effective way of speeding up the ordering process, regardless of where the ticket office was!

 

[The Barlow Boy]

The OP has suitable advice, and we're now debating the rights & wrongs of PFs being issued in this scenario. Let's be clear; the rules do allow it. The debate is about whether the rules should allow it or not (and that debate will not help the OP, other than provide suggestions for how the OP could contact the media and their MP to exert pressure, if they wish to escalate the matter)

It's not really a ticketing issue, it's more of a Penalty Fare issue. Perhaps you (and others) could write to your MP and ask if Penalty Fares legislation was intended to penalise someone travelling over-distance on a ticket where they should have bought a different ticket, but at the same price.

Imagine if the train had a friendly guard. Up here, where we're rather more civilised and don't have Penalty Fares, the conversation may have gone something like this:-

Guard "Tickets please"
Passenger "Hi, I'm going to Farringdon, is this OK?"
Guard "Oh, no your ticket doesn't cover your full journey, I'll need to issue an excess, let me check the price... ah, that's the same fare, so no payment required, here's your excess"
Passenger "Thank you!"
​

(This conversation could still have happened, had the customer checked at the booking office before setting off on the journey).

It is clear to me that the Penalty Fare legislation is being misused by some TOCs. Also, let's not forget, Penalty Fares are intended for legitimate customers making honest mistakes, and anyone being charged one is not being accused of intending to avoid payment. Anyone appealing a PF needs to bear that in mind (I've given advice accordingly to the OP via PM).

It's PFs that are flawed, not the railway ticketing system in this case (OK, the railway ticketing system isn't perfect, but no-one has come up with an acceptable alternative. The ticketing system has been under scrutiny in no less than 3 threads in the past 3 weeks, and that's not including this one!)

What's not always and entirely understood by the people from north of Watford is the plethora of London stations that serve different places from south of the Thames. Pitching up at East Croydon station a passenger asks for a ticket to London. In B.R. days the ticket's destination would have shown "London SR". This meant Victoria, London Bridge, Blackfriars, Holborn Viaduct or Canon Street. Upon the introduction of the Thameslink route and with the closure of Holborn Viaduct being replaced with St. Paul's Thameslink - later re-named "City Thameslink" - it became "London Terminals". London Terminals did not include Farringdon or King's Cross Thameslink (later St. Pancras) and notices to that effect used to be displayed - but not now.
Now, I can almost guarantee that if you were to stop and ask passengers passing through East Croydon or Bromley South if their London Terminals ticket was valid to Farringdon they'd say yes. This is the crux of the matter. Someone has made a mistaken assumption and someone else won't back down and accept that - even though there's been no loss of revenue - which begs the question of the reason for the intervention of a Revenue Protection Inspector. Like I said earlier, it would seem that F.C.C. are spending a pound to save fifty pence.

 

[dar2008]

What's not always and entirely understood by the people from north of Watford is the plethora of London stations that serve different places from south of the Thames. Pitching up at East Croydon station a passenger asks for a ticket to London. In B.R. days the ticket's destination would have shown "London SR". This meant Victoria, London Bridge, Blackfriars, Holborn Viaduct or Canon Street. Upon the introduction of the Thameslink route and with the closure of Holborn Viaduct being replaced with St. Paul's Thameslink - later re-named "City Thameslink" - it became "London Terminals". London Terminals did not include Farringdon or King's Cross Thameslink (later St. Pancras) and notices to that effect used to be displayed - but not now.
Now, I can almost guarantee that if you were to stop and ask passengers passing through East Croydon or Bromley South if their London Terminals ticket was valid to Farringdon they'd say yes. This is the crux of the matter. Someone has made a mistaken assumption and someone else won't back down and accept that - even though there's been no loss of revenue - which begs the question of the reason for the intervention of a Revenue Protection Inspector. Like I said earlier, it would seem that F.C.C. are spending a pound to save fifty pence.

Very well put and explains exactly how I used to buy tickets in the 'old days',... "Can I have a return to London please?" Totally agree that most passengers at Bromley South / East Croydon would assume that included Farringdon, which has an EC1 postcode.

Thanks to everyone who's responded to this thread with their views, it's appreciated. My daughter has now sent her letter to IRCAS,... I'll update this thread if / when a response is received!

 

[Oswyntail]

...
Trying to imagine your ring.... I guess approximately the circle line plus waterloo? What station apart from city thameslink and farringdon are inside the ring (I'm assuming the ring on its south edge is victoria charing cross waterloo blackfriars london bridge cannon street fenchurch street?...

I also included Old Street and Waterloo East.

 

[snail]

On the majority of tickets such as Southampton to St Pancras LL break of journey at Farringdon would be allowed though. Don't understand your point?

It wouldn't be allowed on Southampton to London Terminals. As explained by others, St Pancras is a London Terminal but only if approaching from the north. So it's understandable if someone not knowing the way this works inadvertently thinks London Terminal tickets are valid to SPLL from the south as well.

 

[cuccir]

Just wait till Crossrail starts...

 

[CNash]

Can I see if I've got this correct? It's a bit of a reading comprehension exercise for me, you see.

The OP's daughter was issued with a penalty fare because of the exception from the London Terminals definition page on NR's website:

"‘London Terminals’ tickets do not permit travel between City Thameslink, Farringdon and St Pancras International on the First Capital Connect ‘Thameslink’ route. Such journeys will require a ticket either to the named station or to a destination of ‘London Thameslink’ or to 'Zone U1'."

So any journey to "London Terminals" along that route must end at St. Pancras? In other words, because of this exception, while City Thameslink is a London Terminal, it's not valid when approaching from the north as you'd have to have "travelled between" Farringdon and St. Pancras to get there - therefore Farringdon is over-distance rather than an "intermediate station", a London Terminals ticket holder is not entitled to break or end their journey there, and so a penalty fare is due rather than an excess fare (which in this case would be £0)?

 

[yorkie]

therefore Farringdon is over-distance rather than an "intermediate station"

It is over-distance, but you have the direction wrong. Shortlands [[stn]SRT[/stn]] is in South London.

When a passenger travels over-distance, an excess fare is payable, however in Penalty Fare areas a Penalty Fare of twice the fare (in this case 2 x £0.00 is still £0.00) or £20, whichever is the greater, can be charged for an honest mistake of buying the wrong ticket but at the right price.

 

[calc7]

What seems not to be noticed is that to make this money F.C.C.are spending more. As I stated, it's like spending a pound to make fifty pence.

Remember that if the passenger (and anybody they tell) learns from this mistake, FCC may be set to make more money in future (a ticket to Farringdon rather than London Terminals should see them get a bigger share through ORCATS).

 

[CNash]

It is over-distance, but you have the direction wrong. Shortlands [[stn]SRT[/stn]] is in South London.

Trust me to assume rather than actually looking to see where it was... So then, travelling past City Thameslink on a London Terminals ticket is not allowed, because St Pancras isn't a London Terminal when approached from the south, and because of the prohibition from travelling between St. Pancras and City Thameslink.

Poor old Farringdon seems to be the odd one out in this endeavour, caught between terminals on a through route... Am I right in thinking that using Oyster PAYG would have been easier, and with less restrictions?

 

[Monty]

It is over-distance, but you have the direction wrong. Shortlands [[stn]SRT[/stn]] is in South London.

When a passenger travels over-distance, an excess fare is payable, however in Penalty Fare areas a Penalty Fare of twice the fare (in this case 2 x £0.00 is still £0.00) or £20, whichever is the greater, can be charged for an honest mistake of buying the wrong ticket but at the right price.

When I was previously employed on SWT's revenue protection before coming a guard and this used to be a issue that cropped up every now and again, and SWT's view on the matter was that a Penalty Fare was still applicable as the the passenger who purchased a ticket to X from Y, but travelled to Z dispite the fare being the same was that the passenger could not prove they had not used that ticket or going to use that ticket for another journey.

Sounds a bit petty I know but the rules are the rules, Personally I think the issue is with the ticketing system not the penalty fares rules that is the problem, The Penalty Fares rules are quite clear and does allow discretion could be used. But unfortunately for Dar2008's daughter buying the incorrect ticket by mistake is not one of them.

If it was me I would have just educated the young lady and sent her on her merry way without even bothering to do an excess, at the very worst I would have withdrawn that ticket and sold another under condition 2.

Dar2008 for what it's worth I hope she wins her appeal but I hope she doesn't take too much to heart if she doesn't, and as I always say if you are not 100% sure about the ticket you have. Ask, thats what we are here for.

 

[MikeWh]

Am I right in thinking that using Oyster PAYG would have been easier, and with less restrictions?

Absolutely, as I posted earlier in the thread.

 

[yorkie]

Am I right in thinking that using Oyster PAYG would have been easier, and with less restrictions?

Yes, MikeWh is quite right (post #23) to recommend Oyster PAYG between Shortlands & Farringdon, as PAYG is cheaper than a Shortlands to Farringdon paper ticket and, arguably, easier, given that you can get auto top-up online and then you never have to visit a ticket office or TVM again, providing you ensure that you touch in & out correctly you can't go wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean by "less restrictions" as the only paper ticket available for this journey is an Anytime Day Return, which by definition has no restriction code.

 

[CNash]

I'm not sure what you mean by "less restrictions" as the only paper ticket available for this journey is an Anytime Day Return, which by definition has no restriction code.

Sorry - "less restrictions" in that you could travel along the Thameslink route on Oyster, and alight at St. Pancras from the south if you so chose, which isn't possible on a London Terminals ticket.

 

[yorkie]

Sorry - "less restrictions" in that you could travel along the Thameslink route on Oyster, and alight at St. Pancras from the south if you so chose, which isn't possible on a London Terminals ticket.

Well, you're talking about one of the fundamental principles of Oyster vs paper tickets here. (This, really, should probably be in a new thread, I'll leave it here for now, but will move it if it develops).

With paper tickets, you state a destination, are charged a fare, and issued with a ticket which is evidence of a contract. In this case, the passenger stated a destination that was, unfortunately and mistakenly, short of their actual destination, though the fare to the correct destination is identical.

With Oyster PAYG, you touch in at your destination and are charged a maximum fare, and you are free to pick your destination (within the PAYG area) and then simply touch out. You are then refunded the difference between the maximum fare that you were charged when you entered, and the correct fare for the actual journey made.

So, Oyster PAYG offers more flexibility (or fewer 'restrictions' if you want to view it that way), but the term restrictions has a specific meaning regarding tickets so lets avoid that) in that you can change your destination en-route (or even start with no specific destination in mind and decide en-route!).

I recommend reading MikeWh's Oyster website, and you may also find a Fares workshop useful (we have spare places this Saturday in London).

 

[snail]

I'm not sure what you mean by "less restrictions"

Neither am I. It should be "fewer restrictions"!

 

[34D]

I also included Old Street and Waterloo East.

Those two on your ring (which makes sense to me) or inside your ring (which doesn't)? I still don't know what else is inside your ring (apart from future Crossrail stations) apart from Farringdon. Old Street and Waterloo East are London Terminals...

It wouldn't be allowed on Southampton to London Terminals. As explained by others, St Pancras is a London Terminal but only if approaching from the north. So it's understandable if someone not knowing the way this works inadvertently thinks London Terminal tickets are valid to SPLL from the south as well.

Of course, but that wasn't what you were talking about:

Well said. I could understand someone making the mistake with St Pancras if travelling from the south, or - stretching the point - claiming that because their ticket is valid to St Pancras they can finish short at Farringdon.

Where you seemed to be referring to a ticket valid to St Pancras "from the south" hence my example of Southampton to St Pancras (I didn't want to suggest a place such as Ashford from which STP _is_ a London Terminal due to HS1.

Just wait till Crossrail starts...

A very interesting point - though as Crossrail is a TfL project I wonder if Slough to Oxford Circus will be treated as now (ie a journey to zone U1)?

What would be ironic is, using the example of the Liverpool/Moorgate crossrail (same platform, stairs at its west end leading to ZMG and at its Eastern end to LST), if going to one gateline was charged higher than the other!

 

[snail]

Of course, but that wasn't what you were talking about:

Yes it was. Read my post carefully.

I'll try again:
St Pancras IS a London Terminals station but tickets from the south to 'London Terminals' are not valid to it. Someone could easily forget that and try to travel there. I've almost done it myself. I am referring to the potential for misunderstanding, not the actual validity rule.

 

[34D]

Yes it was. Read my post carefully.

I'll try again:
St Pancras IS a London Terminals station but tickets from the south to 'London Terminals' are not valid to it. Someone could easily forget that and try to travel there. I've almost done it myself. I am referring to the potential for misunderstanding, not the actual validity rule.

Agree with the facts that you state (ignoring HS1, for simplicity). Yes I suppose that mistake could occur.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

When I was previously employed on SWT's revenue protection before coming a guard and this used to be a issue that cropped up every now and again, and SWT's view on the matter was that a Penalty Fare was still applicable as the the passenger who purchased a ticket to X from Y, but travelled to Z dispite the fare being the same was that the passenger could not prove they had not used that ticket or going to use that ticket for another journey.

Sounds a bit petty I know but the rules are the rules, Personally I think the issue is with the ticketing system not the penalty fares rules that is the problem, The Penalty Fares rules are quite clear and does allow discretion could be used. But unfortunately for Dar2008's daughter buying the incorrect ticket by mistake is not one of them.

If it was me I would have just educated the young lady and sent her on her merry way without even bothering to do an excess, at the very worst I would have withdrawn that ticket and sold another under condition 2. Dar2008 for what it's worth I hope she wins her appeal but I hope she doesn't take too much to heart if she doesn't, and as I always say if you are not 100% sure about the ticket you have. Ask, thats what we are here for.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would - including me in my T.T.I. days - but everything in FCC world is black and white with no grey areas.

 

[GadgetMan]

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would - including me in my T.T.I. days - but everything in FCC world is black and white with no grey areas.

Not necessarily. People who are let off with a friendly warning will not come on this website praising FCC staff.

Passengers who are cautioned obviously will. You can't base your comments on the minority who post on here.

 

[bluenoxid]

Am I going above my station (pun not intended) by suggesting that you drag this through as many channels as possible (MP, DfT (Justine Greening), etc) as well. It may seem a wasted effort but I am sure that someone will bite on a pathetic prosecution like this.

I am disappointed to see this being thought of as pursuable.

My advice would be to raise as many complaints to FCC as possible from now on (for every minor complaint). Each complaint costs money to answer. Two can play at that game.

 

[6Gman]

It's an area where discretion is unlikely to be shown because it happens a lot at Farringdon from my understanding. I also believe that discretion is meant to be shown only when the passenger is either:

• Disabled
• Tourists
• Senior Citizens
• Children
• Pregnant

I'm sure there are others though.

An interesting list .......

Why does a "disability" (necessarily) affect your ability to understand ticketing?
Tourists I can understand.
Senior citizens? So if I'm 59 I can understand, at 61 I'm gaga?
Children? Possibly.
Pregnant? What the **** has that to do with understanding the system?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, MikeWh is quite right (post #23) to recommend Oyster PAYG between Shortlands & Farringdon, as PAYG is cheaper than a Shortlands to Farringdon paper ticket and, arguably, easier, given that you can get auto top-up online and then you never have to visit a ticket office or TVM again, providing you ensure that you touch in & out correctly you can't go wrong.
I'm not sure what you mean by "less restrictions" as the only paper ticket available for this journey is an Anytime Day Return, which by definition has no restriction code.

For a country boy like me that's easier said than done!

 

[bnm]

An interesting list .......

Why does a "disability" (necessarily) affect your ability to understand ticketing?

Disability doesn't have to be physical. Someone could have learning difficulties.

 

[exile]

There is some logical problem if a ticket from A to C doesn't have the same destination as a ticket from B to C - that is, "C" differs in meaning depending on what your originating station is.

 

[6Gman]

Disability doesn't have to be physical. Someone could have learning difficulties.

That's why I put the word in brackets . I can understand why learning difficulties could be relevant; I don't understand how other disabilities, such as being in a wheelchair, would be.

 

[tony_mac]

because having a disability can alter which stations you can change at, and hence which routes you can take.

Sometimes, it is far more sensible to show some common sense and allow a non-permitted route.