Retiree prevails over FFS after months-long battle

Context

TL;DR

• UFT: 75-franc surcharge deemed unjustified
• A bus delay, then an alternative route
• The case begins with the Küsnacht-Rafz journey
• The case may affect other travelers

Key facts

• Penalty → 75 francs
• Zone surcharge → 1,10 francs
• Route → Küsnacht-Rafz
• Missed connection → Zurich Stadelhofen
• Contested rule → T600
• Letter from ZVV → October 7
• FOT decision → unjustified surcharge
• Outcome → no payment and cancellation of the registration

In a letter dated October 7, ZVV informed Fierz that he would not be required to make any payment and that his entry in the register of travelers without a valid ticket would be deleted. The communication came after months of complaints and after the Federal Office of Transport had deemed the contested surcharge unjustified.

The interrupted journey

The story dates back to last spring. The pensioner from the Canton of Zurich was traveling with a friend from Küsnacht to Rafz for an outing, using public transport. A delayed bus caused the two to miss their connection at Zurich Stadelhofen. To reach their destination, they took the first available connection.

Unaware that they had crossed an additional fare zone, they should have paid 1,10 francs for that leg. Instead, the inspection ended with a penalty of 75 francs and their entry in the register of travelers without a valid ticket.

“I felt treated like a criminal.”

The dispute over the route

Fierz contested the penalty. He argued that the change of route was not his fault, but that of the public transport companies, and pointed out that the FFS app itself had suggested the alternative connection. His objection was also more general: in his view, one cannot expect every traveler to know all the fare zones.

At first, FFS customer service deducted 40 francs from the surcharge, leaving 35 francs to be paid in addition to the entry in the register. ZVV and the public transport conciliation body nevertheless rejected the objections. The dispute centered on provision T600, according to which, if a train is delayed or canceled, the holder of a valid ticket may use the next suitable connection, even via a different route, without paying a price difference. Fierz saw this as confirmation that he had acted correctly, while FFS and the conciliation body maintained that the connection could not cross additional fare zones. As a civil lawsuit appeared imminent, ZVV sought the opinion of the FOT, which overturned the previous decisions. Fierz nevertheless intends to pursue the civil lawsuit to obtain compensation.

Operational details

The practical significance of the decision lies not only in the difference between 1,10 and 75 francs. The case lays out three distinct levels: the price of the zone crossed, the surcharge imposed during the inspection and the entry in the register of travelers without a valid transport ticket. The 40-franc reduction granted by FFS had eliminated neither the 35-franc balance nor the entry. UFT's ruling changed both outcomes for Fierz.

Four readings of the same rule

The practical issue is therefore the notion of an appropriate connection. The T600 provision, as reported in the source, concerns the delay or cancellation of a train and recognizes the possibility of continuing with the next appropriate connection. The dispute arose from how this rule was to be interpreted in the case of an alternative route that crossed an additional zone.

In the specific case, the change was not presented as a choice to save money or modify the journey. It followed a bus delay, a missed connection at Zurich Stadelhofen and the suggestion from the FFS app. Fierz's position therefore linked the change of zone to a situation imposed by the service. The opposing position, on the other hand, separated the validity of the ticket from the possibility of crossing additional fare zones.

This contrast explains why a surcharge of 1,10 francs led to a broader dispute. The issue was not only the cost of the zone, but whether that cost could be charged after a route change caused by the delay.

The source indicates that the decision could also have consequences for other travelers. UFT, Alliance SwissPass and Unione dei trasporti pubblici will discuss the concrete procedures for applying it. The indicated next step is therefore the move from the decision in the individual case to defining the procedures for its application. Any compensation, by contrast, remains the subject of the civil case that the pensioner intends to pursue.

Key points

To reconstruct the case in practical terms, the documented sequence does not begin with the final decision, but with the challenge to the inspection. There are five steps.

The documented sequence

1. Change of route. A bus delay caused Fierz and his friend to miss their connection at Zurich Stadelhofen. The two took the first available connection to reach Rafz and crossed an additional fare zone.

2. Contestation of the penalty. The pensioner disputed the 75 francs, arguing that the change was not his fault. He also pointed out that the FFS app had suggested precisely the alternative connection.

3. Subsequent complaints. FFS customer service reduced the surcharge by 40 francs, but left 35 francs to pay and the entry in the register. ZVV and the conciliation body for public transport also initially rejected the objections.

4. Assessment by the federal authority. Faced with the prospect of a civil lawsuit, ZVV requested an assessment from the Federal Office of Transport, identified by the source as the competent supervisory authority.

5. Outcome of the decision. After the FOT's ruling, ZVV's letter of October 7 communicated that Fierz would not have to pay anything and that the entry would be deleted. The pensioner nevertheless wants to continue the civil lawsuit to obtain compensation.

The sequence separates two results that should not be confused. The decision communicated by ZVV concerns the surcharge and the register of travelers without a valid ticket. The claim for compensation, on the other hand, follows a separate civil route, which Fierz does not intend to abandon.

The chronology also helps to understand the case: the journey took place last spring, the complaints continued for months, and the decisive communication arrived on October 7. The source adds that the discussion on the practical application will involve UFT, Alliance SwissPass and Unione dei trasporti pubblici.

To find your way through the rules of mezzi pubblici, consult the dedicated tool from Frontaliere Ticino.

Source: tio.ch