LNER travel irregularity

[bertiebruss]

Advice welcomed
i purchased 3 tickets ( 1 adult, 1 railcard 26-30, 1 railcard 16-24 ) Donacster to London 13/04/24 for myself and 2 children , before boarding child no 2 realised railcard had expired so immediately purchased new one on Trip.com
boarded train, inspector arrived showed 3 tickets on my phone , child 1 26-30 showed railcard , child 2 attempted to show railcard 16-24 still showing as expired ( when bank checked realised transaction to purchase new card prior to journey with trip had not completed so no valid railcard)

asked inspector our options offered to purchased new ticket @£68.00 or she suggested we could have a travel irregularity ticket we questioned what this was and was told we would receive a letter then needed to explain our situation but she said it was not a fine.
child 2 gave her details as requested
Letter arrived stating when asked for your 26-30 railcard you failed to produce

my question is child 1 was travelling on 26-30 railcard which was produced
Child 2 was travelling on 16-24 which was expired railcard expired

the inspector had quoted the wrong railcard in the report, is child 2 still liable to pay

I offered to purchase a new ticket for child 2 but the inspector swayed us towards accepting a travel irregularity ticket

request for fares arrived for £285.50

many thanks in advance

 

[notmyrealname]

Hi.

Could you post the paperwork you've received please, so people can advise? Cover up your name and address and their reference numbers.

 

[bertiebruss]

This is the first letter which I replied to with explanation along with copies of tickets and railcards , the amount To pay was reduced to £285.50 as the new railcard was valid for the return journey

it was not until after I had replied I realised that the wrong railcard had been quoted

 

[HurdyGurdy]

asked inspector our options offered to purchased new ticket @£68.00 or she suggested we could have a travel irregularity ticket we questioned what this was and was told we would receive a letter then needed to explain our situation but she said it was not a fine.

I'm not quite clear from what you've said here whether the inspector on the train gave you the option of paying for a new ticket, there and then or to be issued with a Ticket Irregularity (Report) and that it was your choice to make. If so, was it made clear to you that if you didn't pay, there and then, you would be reported and potentially prosecuted?

 

[bertiebruss]

I'm not quite clear from what you've said here whether the inspector on the train gave you the option of paying for a new ticket, there and then or to be issued with a Ticket Irregularity (Report) and that it was your choice to make. If so, was it made clear to you that if you didn't pay, there and then, you would be reported and potentially prosecuted?

Yes she gave us the option of buying a new ticket or to be issued with a ticket irregularly which we had never heard of and when asked what this was she told us we just had to explain our situation by letter, we asked twice if this was a fine and she said no (she swayed us towards this option)

 

[AlterEgo]

How have they calculated £271 as the fare here? That would be an Anytime Return - were you travelling on the outward or return portion?

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Yes she gave us the option of buying a new ticket

I presume you had cash or a payment card or app and could have purchased that ticket, there and then?

If so, it's wrong of the inspector to let you/child 2 choose to be reported instead, without understanding the consequences.

she swayed us towards this option

Hmmm...

How have they calculated £271 as the fare here?

Not really relevant as OP has explained, since that was quoted LNER has accepted a railcard was held for the return journey and reduced the settlement offer.

I'm far more concerned about the ticket inspection on the train where being reported for potential prosecution was 'sold' as a good deal versus immediate payment for a new ticket.

 

[bertiebruss]

How have they calculated £271 as the fare here? That would be an Anytime Return - were you travelling on the outward or return portion?

I presume you had cash or a payment card or app and could have purchased that ticket, there and then?

If so, it's wrong of the inspector to let you/child 2 choose to be reported instead, without understanding the consequences.


Hmmm...



Not really relevant as OP has explained, since that was quoted LNER has accepted a railcard was held for the return journey and reduced the settlement offer.

I'm far more concerned about the ticket inspection on the train where being reported for potential prosecution was 'sold' as a good deal versus immediate payment for a new ticket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From what the inspector said I believed it was a case of explaining the error and sending copies of the railcards and that would be sufficient when twice asked if it was a fine she said no

Sounds like she misunderstood and thought the Railcard had just been forgotten, as if you can present it afterwards there is indeed nothing to pay (once per person per 12 month period).

 

[bertiebruss]

Can child 2 be prosecuted for not producing a 26-30 railcard when she was travelling on a ticket for a 16-24 railcard ?

 

[HurdyGurdy]

From what the inspector said I believed it was a case of explaining the error and sending copies of the railcards and that would be sufficient when twice asked if it was a fine she said no

Sounds like she misunderstood and thought the Railcard had just been forgotten, as if you can present it afterwards there is indeed nothing to pay (once per person per 12 month period).

You may well be correct and the inspector has simply assumed something along those lines. But the inspector can't just assume a valid railcard has been left at home and can eventually be produced, before encouraging a passenger not to pay for a new ticket, there and then.

 

[ikcdab]

to be honest, theyt say you didnt have the 26-30 railcard which you did. So just send proof of the 26-30 railcard and that should be the end of it?

 

[bertiebruss]

to be honest, theyt say you didnt have the 26-30 railcard which you did. So just send proof of the 26-30 railcard and that should be the end of it?

But the Railcard 26-30 is in the name of child 1 it is child 2 whom the travel irregularity is addressed to

 

[jamiearmley]

Did you discover the Railcard purchase had failed after the event, or before?

If before, why did you not attempt to make the purchase again?

If discovered later, then at the time of the discussion with the inspector, did you state that you had purchased a Railcard prior to travel but it would not display in the app, only discovering the failed transaction later on?

If so, then you were offered two options which were equally fair : in fact, the travel irregularity report more so, as it would have required no financial outlay at the time, whereas the new ticket would have incurred a temporary cost until claimed back under the forgotten Railcard policy.

This case is a good example of why I always issue a TIR for a forgotten Railcard. I would not like to sit here reading accusations that I persuaded a customer one way or another.

 

[Fermiboson]

Did you discover the Railcard purchase had failed after the event, or before?

If before, why did you not attempt to make the purchase again?

If discovered later, then at the time of the discussion with the inspector, did you state that you had purchased a Railcard prior to travel but it would not display in the app, only discovering the failed transaction later on?

If so, then you were offered two options which were equally fair : in fact, the travel irregularity report more so, as it would have required no financial outlay at the time, whereas the new ticket would have incurred a temporary cost until claimed back under the forgotten Railcard policy.

This case is a good example of why I always issue a TIR for a forgotten Railcard. I would not like to sit here reading accusations that I persuaded a customer one way or another.

NRCoT 8.5-8.6:

8.5 If you are travelling with a Railcard discounted Ticket and are unable to present the
Railcard when asked by the staff or authorised agents of a Train Company, you will be
treated as having joined a train without a valid Ticket and Conditions 9.1 – 9.5 will apply.

8.6 However, if you were unable to present the Railcard because you had forgotten to carry
it on that particular journey or mislaid it, the Train Company concerned will refund any
fare or Penalty Fare paid in accordance with Condition 10

Would issuing a TIR not technically remove these options from the passenger, since 9.1-9.5 authorises prosecution?

Regarding OP, my reading is that they realised the purchase had failed after the event. Reasonably speaking presentation of the evidence of the failed bank transaction should be able to convince the company to let the matter drop, but I don't know if this would work in practice.

 

[bertiebruss]

Did you discover the Railcard purchase had failed after the event, or before?

If before, why did you not attempt to make the purchase again?

If discovered later, then at the time of the discussion with the inspector, did you state that you had purchased a Railcard prior to travel but it would not display in the app, only discovering the failed transaction later on?

If so, then you were offered two options which were equally fair : in fact, the travel irregularity report more so, as it would have required no financial outlay at the time, whereas the new ticket would have incurred a temporary cost until claimed back under the forgotten Railcard policy.

This case is a good example of why I always issue a TIR for a forgotten Railcard. I would not like to sit here reading accusations that I persuaded a customer one way or another.

discovered at the time of inspection as only the expired card was showing and this was explained to the inspector

 

[HurdyGurdy]

If so, then you were offered two options which were equally fair : in fact, the travel irregularity report more so, as it would have required no financial outlay at the time, whereas the new ticket would have incurred a temporary cost until claimed back under the forgotten Railcard policy.

I'm sorry, but this is you making presumptions on behalf of the passenger. Whatever their explanation, you cannot know that a passenger will eventually be able to produce the absent railcard. They may honestly think they've left it at home, but have actually lost it en-route. They may honestly believe it's valid, but when they retrieve it, it's expired. They may think they have purchased one online, but the transaction has not actually gone through.

If it's fair, as you say, to offer the passenger the option of purchasing a new ticket there and then - then make a claim for a refund should the railcard eventually be found - where that option is set against the issuing of a TIR, it must be explained to the passenger that if they don't purchase the new ticket, they are being reported for investigation and are liable to prosecution if they can't eventually produce the railcard.

 

[jamiearmley]

NRCoT 8.5-8.6:

Would issuing a TIR not technically remove these options from the passenger, since 9.1-9.5 authorises prosecution?

Regarding OP, my reading is that they realised the purchase had failed after the event. Reasonably speaking presentation of the evidence of the failed bank transaction should be able to convince the company to let the matter drop, but I don't know if this would work in practice.

It doesn't. It allows the forgotten Railcard policy to be enacted at no cost to the customer.

 

[bertiebruss]

I'm sorry, but this is you making presumptions on behalf of the passenger. Whatever their explanation, you cannot know that a passenger will eventually be able to produce the absent railcard. They may honestly think they've left it at home, but have actually lost it en-route. They may honestly believe it's valid, but when they retrieve it, it's expired. They may think they have purchased one online, but the transaction has not actually gone through.

If it's fair, as you say, to offer the passenger the option of purchasing a new ticket there and then - then make a claim for a refund should the railcard eventually be found - where that option is set against the issuing of a TIR, it must be explained to the passenger that if they don't purchase the new ticket, they are being reported for investigation and are liable to prosecution if they can't eventually produce the railcard.

we knew at the point of inspection that we would not be able to provide a current railcard if we had know that there would have been any liability of prosecution I would definitely taken the option of purchasing a new ticket

 

[jamiearmley]

I'm sorry, but this is you making presumptions on behalf of the passenger. Whatever their explanation, you cannot know that a passenger will eventually be able to produce the absent railcard. They may honestly think they've left it at home, but have actually lost it en-route. They may honestly believe it's valid, but when they retrieve it, it's expired. They may think they have purchased one online, but the transaction has not actually gone through.

If it's fair, as you say, to offer the passenger the option of purchasing a new ticket there and then - then make a claim for a refund should the railcard eventually be found - where that option is set against the issuing of a TIR, it must be explained to the passenger that if they don't purchase the new ticket, they are being reported for investigation and are liable to prosecution if they can't eventually produce the railcard.

Regarding the first point: it's not a presumption. It's taking what the passenger says at face value : which is absolutely what should be done.

Regarding the second point: I don't think it's fair to charge genuine people enormous sums for a mistake, even if they can claim it back some weeks later : any more than I think it's fair to let genuine fare evaders get away with only buying a new ticket each time they are detected, while the rest of us subsidise all the times they don't get caught.

However, we are going off topic.

The passenger should have been told that the failure to produce the Railcard would be reported, and that failure to later provide the railcard could result in further action. It's concerning that this does not appear to be the case. I would be surprised, however, if evidence of the failed transaction was not accepted, especially if a later successful transaction could also be demonstrated.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Regarding the first point: it's not a presumption. It's taking what the passenger says at face value : which is absolutely what should be done.

Regarding the second point: I don't think it's fair to charge genuine people enormous sums for a mistake, even if they can claim it back some weeks later : any more than I think it's fair to let genuine fare evaders get away with only buying a new ticket each time they are detected, while the rest of us subsidise all the times they don't get caught.

On the first point. The presumption you make is that the passenger is not mistaken and that they can eventually produce the absent railcard. Because you know there will be serious consequences if they decline to buy a new ticket on the spot, then can't produce the railcard, understanding that they might be mistaken and advising them accordingly is not doubting their word or questioning their motives.

On the second point. I agree that genuine mistakes should not lead to huge penalties being imposed, even if recoverable. And, by always issuing a TIR when a passenger says they have a railcard, but haven't got it with them, you may think you forgiving their mistake in the kindest way. But I think you know that if their actual mistake is believing that they can eventually produce the missing railcard, by issuing the TIR you are going to saddle them with a much higher sum to pay when that mistake comes to light. I think if you want to be as fair to the passenger as you say, you don't make assumptions about what mistake they may have made. You just explain the options and the consequences of each and let the passenger make an informed choice.

In this case the OP is faced with paying £285 because they were encouraged (in what like you, the inspector probably thought was their best interests, but without properly explaining the consequences) not to purchase a new ticket on the train.

 

[robbeech]

It’s well known, from several threads on here there there is an increasing tendency for staff, be them the guard or dedicated revenue staff, on board or at stations to be a little loose with the facts when it comes to the consequences of ticketing actions. It’s incredibly poor but we are where we are with it.

We see people told that they can “just appeal it” when a penalty fare has been unlawfully issued, only to find that this isn’t as simple as it appears due to the unique way the railway has pitiful regulation and can essentially do as it pleases.

In this case, suggesting that it’s “not a fine” is grossly unhelpful for the passenger. It’s accurate, but merely on a technicality. Only a court can issue a fine, and this isn’t issued by a court so in essence, it is not a fine but that doesn’t stop it being several times the ticket price. Regardless, I very much doubt the member of staff in question has the knowledge to distinguish between a fixed penalty or a fine. As such, for the member of staff to state it is “not a fine” is at best misleading and at worst and outright lie. It’s disappointing that the railway uses this lack of knowledge to its advantage but, welcome to the railway.

Does the passenger now have a valid railcard that started on the day in question? For example, did they or yourself go on to make another attempt to purchase the railcard on that day. If so then this may well help if you contact them and show that one was purchased, it’s possible that they’ll cancel this. What you must NOT do is show them a railcard as if it was purchased before the journey, you must be honest.

Whilst it cannot be argued that an offence was committed at the time, it’s clear that it was unintentional, and you’ve been misled by the railway into paying significantly more money than you otherwise would have. I’m aware that certain senior members of several operators read these forums and I’d hope that you are able to communicate with them and get this matter settled. I’d be happy to suggest that if a railcard has been purchased promptly after this incident then any reasonable operator would cancel this penalty, or at worst charge only the difference between the fare paid and the appropriate non discounted fare.

 

[bertiebruss]

It’s well known, from several threads on here there there is an increasing tendency for staff, be them the guard or dedicated revenue staff, on board or at stations to be a little loose with the facts when it comes to the consequences of ticketing actions. It’s incredibly poor but we are where we are with it.

We see people told that they can “just appeal it” when a penalty fare has been unlawfully issued, only to find that this isn’t as simple as it appears due to the unique way the railway has pitiful regulation and can essentially do as it pleases.

In this case, suggesting that it’s “not a fine” is grossly unhelpful for the passenger. It’s accurate, but merely on a technicality. Only a court can issue a fine, and this isn’t issued by a court so in essence, it is not a fine but that doesn’t stop it being several times the ticket price. Regardless, I very much doubt the member of staff in question has the knowledge to distinguish between a fixed penalty or a fine. As such, for the member of staff to state it is “not a fine” is at best misleading and at worst and outright lie. It’s disappointing that the railway uses this lack of knowledge to its advantage but, welcome to the railway.

Does the passenger now have a valid railcard that started on the day in question? For example, did they or yourself go on to make another attempt to purchase the railcard on that day. If so then this may well help if you contact them and show that one was purchased, it’s possible that they’ll cancel this. What you must NOT do is show them a railcard as if it was purchased before the journey, you must be honest.

Whilst it cannot be argued that an offence was committed at the time, it’s clear that it was unintentional, and you’ve been misled by the railway into paying significantly more money than you otherwise would have. I’m aware that certain senior members of several operators read these forums and I’d hope that you are able to communicate with them and get this matter settled. I’d be happy to suggest that if a railcard has been purchased promptly after this incident then any reasonable operator would cancel this penalty, or at worst charge only the difference between the fare paid and the appropriate non discounted fare.

Thank you for your response I have been totally honest when trying to explain everything and yes new a railcard was purchased immediately

 

[Haywain]

we knew at the point of inspection that we would not be able to provide a current railcard if we had know that there would have been any liability of prosecution I would definitely taken the option of purchasing a new ticket

But, at that point, were you aware that the purchase had actually failed?

 

[bertiebruss]

But, at that point, were you aware that the purchase had actually failed?

Yes