"Challenging a rail fine cost me ^25 ^ and my train company ^1,500" James Daley

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the Telegraph:

Challenging a rail fine cost me ^25 ^ and my train company ^1,500

Comment: After being hit with a ^109 rail fine, consumer champion James Daley found the rail operator was prepared to fight all the way to the courts

I took my train company to court today. First Great Western charged me ^109 for an honest mistake that I made back in February. It was ludicrous that this ever made it into the courtroom.

I accidentally didn't download my outward journey tickets on a trip to Cardiff, and the train company refused to refund me for the additional ^109 I was charged by the ticket inspector, even after I produced evidence that my outbound tickets were never downloaded from the machine.

The details of my story are incidental. What matters is that I ^ like thousands of other people a week ^ made an honest mistake. I don't blame the ticket inspector for failing to show any discretion (although that would have been nice).

But I do question where the moral centre is of a company that is ready to fight a customer all the way to the courts to defend their right to penalise honest customers for mistakes.

In the three hours while I waited for our case to be called at Wandsworth County Court this morning, I learned quite a lot about First Great Western. They are the only train operator in the country to have a specialist in rail law on their books ^ and they appear to be more litigious and confrontational than just about any other train company.

Someone senior in the organisation had clearly made the call to fight me all the way to the end because they were exasperated by the blogs that I've written over the past few months. So here's another one.

And the outcome? Well, that depends on your point of view. The judge stuck with the letter of the law, which states you must produce a valid ticket when asked ^ end of story.

But in financial terms, I'm down ^109 plus ^25 in small claims court fees, while First Group are down around ^1,500 in their lawyer's costs ^ even after taking into account the ^109 additional fare that they got to hang onto.

So in boxing ring style, I feel able to declare myself the true winner. And by going all the way to court, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) merely ensured that I would continue to keep this cause close to my heart.

They may have had the law on their side, but if 99pc of people think the law is not fair, and wasn't designed to be applied in this way, I'd suggest it makes them look like monsters to dig their heels in as they have done.

As I see it, they've spent ^1,500 sending a message to forgetful and clumsy people everywhere that they're willing to do whatever it takes to profit from their mistakes. But I'll leave you to make up your own mind.

As I wrote in a previous blog, this speaks to a real problem with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage as they currently stand. Unlike other contracts, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations cannot be applied to them.

Worse still, there's no competitive mechanism to stop train companies behaving as FGW have. I've travelled on FGW trains multiple times since February. If I had a choice, I'd never set foot on one again.

So, I'm now setting up a meeting with the Transport Minister to find out what it will take to get these rules changed.

Sadly, a new version of the Conditions of Carriage has only just been released ^ and there's no new provisions to insist train companies treat their customers with some dignity. So let's take the fight to the next stage.

James Daley is the founder of Fairer Finance (fairerfinance.com), the consumer group and financial ratings website. Follow him on Twitter @fairerfinance

[JayMac]

His own fault and he tried to sue for his money back?

Dick.

And FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are only down (allegedly) ^1500 because he took them to court. What were they supposed to do? Not turn up and risk a default judgement? Besides which, if FGW have an in-house specialist in rail law then I strongly suspect it was that salaried person defending the claim, so no lawyers fees. I'd like to see the judgement to see whether FGW were awarded any costs. They'd've been entitled to some, although Small Claims costs are usually limited to ^200.

[grahame]

As a comment piece, the original article lacks input from First Great Western - the "a spokesman said" type stuff.  And for me that means it forms an interesting basis on which to talk about things, but not a balanced discussion on which to comment.  Usually, I would refrain from discussion on individual cases but as James Daley has chosen to do so on his own case, I believe that opens the door for it.


OK. The rule is there for what I believe is a good reason - to prevent the system having a loophole in it through which a significant revenue loss could occur. Discression should be shown where it's pretty certain that an honest mistake has been made, and should not be shown where it's pretty obviously a "try on". But that leaves a huge potential range of cases that lie in the middle, and they're the really awkward calls.  This is a whole "general life" thing and not just limited to mobile ticketing - so I can take other examples to show what I mean.

We have a long list of "you may not"s in our forum agreement here - many more than ideal, but they're all there for good reason. And we show discression in their application; a rule-break by a newcomer which happens occasionally (you would be suprised how rarely, but that's another story) will result in no more than a quiet note of "would you mind not ..." or "please change ...".  But a rule-break by a well established poster will resu;t in a stronger "oy", and a rule break by someone I would classify as vexatious would result in stronger action, and discression only after very careful thought indeed and a moderator / admin discussion.   Eight years on, I'm delighted to still have at least one spare finger on my first hand if I count up such people - it's rare.

We would take very great care here in handling a break of our membership rules by a member or person known to us as someone who's a bit of a publicist and who has the ear of the national press, especially where the breach was a clear one of rules not being followed by someone who's an acknowledged campaigner against some of our rules. We've all made mistakes, but James Daley (and myself in a much lesser way) should bear in mind that when we do so, we're far more responsible for following the letter as well as the spirit of the rules than others, and where we overstep we should expect a far stronger comeback if we fight our corner.

Just imagine the revenue protection nightmare of a piece in the Telegraph had the outcome been otherwise - "it's all right not to download your ticket ..." could well have been the widely broadcast message.

[JayMac]

This chap seems a bit confused also. His original blog entry on this saga says he failed to collect the outward portion of his ticket from a TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine). After losing in court, he's saying he failed to download a ticket.

Either way, nobody's fault but his own.

[Red Squirrel]

I think the key words here are 'honest mistake'. Did he make an honest mistake? If he did, then he should have his money back. If it costs [F]GW^▸ (Great Western)[R] money to refund him, then it's fair that they deduct an admin fee - say ^20?

That's the way a fair company deals with its customers. That's the way my company deals with its customers.

[Fourbee]

Presumably he could have been prosecuted for not being in possession of a valid ticket (strict liability offences and all that?). So there has been some discretion shown (in a way).

Maybe cases like this could be handled like season tickets left at home. Full price ticket issued then documentation submitted afterwards for a refund and maybe a deduction made as Red Squirrel suggested.

[Bmblbzzz]

They are the only train operator in the country to have a specialist in rail law on their books

The surprise here is that others do not.

[JayMac]

Indeed. Discretion was shown. An Anytime Single was offered rather than a write up for failing to show a valid ticket.

Had he encountered an RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) rather than a TM^‡(resolve) he may well have been the defendant in court rather than the plaintiff.

I'm all for even more (ie less expensive) discretion to be shown. However, if it isn't then it's take it on the chin time. Running to the Small Claims court was doomed to failure and reading the blog entries I get a strong sense of entitlement where none was due.

[ChrisB]

The customer has to be responsible for collecting a ticket in order to travel, otherwise "I forgot to go to the ticket office" is as valid as "I forgot to go to the TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine)". Responsibility is only in the eye of the beholder, and no one else.

Forgetfullness should never be a defence.

And surely, as he hasn't used the original, non-downloaded ticket(s), he can get a refund on those? So he only pays once, the higher fare, which is a reasonable penalty for his 'forgetfulness'

Personally, I don't believe you can forget to collect tickets anyway. You remember just as soon as you think 'ticket' when entering the station. He was probably simply short on time

[Tim]

I think FGW^▸ (First Great Western) did the right thing here.  If you sue a company they can be expected to defend the claim if they think they have a good chance of wining.  They did not behave unreasonably in doing so. 

I do however wonder if ToCs should be automatically refunding at least some tickets that are not collected from a TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine)?

If I order something online from John Lewis or M&S to collect from the store and then fail to collect it, they will eventually send the goods back to the warehouse and credit my card with the amount spent.    By not doing this the ToCs are indeed being less customer friendly than M&S or Waitrose. 

Having said that FGW and the online ticket retailers are pretty good about refunding unused tickets (minus handling fee) when asked as I found out recently when I left my tickets at home and had to buy new ones.

Discuss??

[JayMac]

It's possible that in this case the tickets were issued and one was left in the TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) hopper. There's very little in the way of checks and balances once that has happened.

I'm not a big fan of analogies with retail purchases but imagine buying or collecting something from M&S or John Lewis and then accidentally leaving it in the store toilet. Would you expect them to refund or replace if it hadn't been handed in?

[Fourbee]

It's possible that in this case the tickets were issued and one was left in the TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) hopper.

I assume the collection receipt which is issued last when collecting ToD tickets is more for the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) benefit than the passenger (I have no use for it) so whatever journalling function is used can say that if the collection receipt has been successfully issued then the other travel tickets must therefore have been?

Doesn't stop someone from leaving one or more of them behind of course.

[JayMac]

And doesn't stop someone other than the purchaser travelling on the actual ticket.

A ticket printed with origin and destination, class, fare paid, is proof of entitlement to travel. Collection receipts, emails, booking references etc, are not.

[Timmer]

Doesn't stop someone from leaving one or more of them behind of course.

Which is easy to do as I once found out. Collecting a load of pre-booked tickets for future travel from a TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine), I noticed they were stacking up in the hopper so I moved some along so as not to jam the machine. Collected the tickets, stuffed them in my pocket and off I went.

Next day I decided to check them and noticed half were missing, so I jumped in the car and headed to station where I had picked them up from. I joined the queue at the ticket office working out how I was going to explain what I'd done. Whilst I was waiting, a thought came to me 'why don't you check the ticket machine just in case they are still there'. To my utter surprise and relief they were still there. A new rule was made, don't leave the station until you've checked you got all the tickets/reservations!

[TaplowGreen]

I sometimes think that the blanket refusal to replace lost tickets is a bit unfair, especially Advance tickets which have a reservation attached to them - surely it would be possible to cancel the original and replace it with a ticket annotated with "duplicate"?

That's what a lot of sporting organisations do with lost/stolen tickets (....and they also have one eye on unauthorised use via touts or similar)