Unable to produce digital railcard - reported for prosecution

[SteveM70]

It seems Wi-Fi was available on the train but the app hadn’t/wouldn’t download where they spoke to the RPI as there was no Wi-Fi at that particular part of the station; only 4G or whatever was available which was insufficient despite having plenty of data remaining.

For what little it’s worth, this probably isn’t a question of 4G “being insufficient despite having plenty of data” - every smartphone I’ve had in recent years (personal iPhones and work Microsoft / Samsung) default to only updating apps over wifi

 

[Bletchleyite]

For what little it’s worth, this probably isn’t a question of 4G “being insufficient despite having plenty of data” - every smartphone I’ve had in recent years (personal iPhones and work Microsoft / Samsung) default to only updating apps over wifi

And absolutely all of them can be switched to do it off 4G very easily.

The only thing I ever found that bizarrely refuses to download (rather than stream) on 4G is the BBC iPlayer.

 

[Andyjs247]

Here is a scan of the letter my daughter received from GWR. I think one of the lessons learned from this is not to rely on digital railcards, although the industry does seem to want to push the use of them by only offering discounts on the digital version of railcards such as 16-25 which my other daughter has just bought.

 

[Dai Corner]

And absolutely all of them can be switched to do it off 4G very easily.

The only thing I ever found that bizarrely refuses to download (rather than stream) on 4G is the BBC iPlayer.

Easily if you realise that's the problem and know where to change it!

 

[Snow1964]

For what little it’s worth, this probably isn’t a question of 4G “being insufficient despite having plenty of data” - every smartphone I’ve had in recent years (personal iPhones and work Microsoft / Samsung) default to only updating apps over wifi

Most do, so as not to draw down paid data.

This is the wording in the FAQs of digital railcard

What happens if I don’t have reception or I am offline?​

Railcard are available offline for a period of up to 72 hours. The Railcard app on your device will continue to show your digital Railcard as long as your mobile device has connected to the internet at some point within the last 72 hours. However, you will need an internet connection to buy your digital Railcard or add it to a new device.

And for the record, this is the wording in FAQ if can’t show your railcard, which is not what the RPI did by taking the ticket

What happens if I have no battery life or can’t show my Railcard?​

If you don’t have any battery life, or have forgotten your device, it won't be possible to check that your Railcard discount is valid. You could be asked to buy a single ticket for your journey, or be issued with a Penalty Fare.

If you do get caught out while travelling, you can make one claim a year to be refunded for any extra fare or penalty you incur.

So as worded, if now incur a penalty, can be refunded it

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here is a scan of the letter my daughter received from GWR. I think one of the lessons learned from this is not to rely on digital railcards, although the industry does seem to want to push the use of them by only offering discounts on the digital version of railcards such as 16-25 which my other daughter has just bought.

Under the section "Railcards and electronic tickets" they say it can be reviewed if evidence of the Railcard is provided. Have you done that?

 

[richw]

data in order to do so.

What about where the bandwidth is inadequate. As an O2 customer I notice in peak summer in Cornwall the bandwidth can’t handle the demand and my mobile internet simply doesn’t work.

I’ll stick to my physical railcard I think.

 

[gray1404]

Totally agree. The once in 12 months forgotten Railcard policy should be applied here and it would be worth responding to GWR to request such and you enclose proof of holding a Railcard so the matter can be closed.

I believe after this has happened a separate complaint about how the staff member concerned should have dealt with the situation differently can be raised. Certainly some training is required.

I do not hold the view that the OP attempted to travel at the point they were stopped. They were not on board a train or had the journey commenced. Bristol TM is not a compulsory ticket area even past the gateline.

Side point, the letter has the journey details the wrong way around.

 

[jthjth]

In the event of device issues, why can’t the rail staff interrogate the digital railcard database? Name and date of birth ought to return suitable candidates and the display photos to confirm. Isn’t this the whole point of information held on a central database? It seems they are just trying to reproduce the experience of the physical card but with added disadvantages.

 

[Deafdoggie]

In the event of device issues, why can’t the rail staff interrogate the digital railcard database? Name and date of birth ought to return suitable candidates and the display photos to confirm. Isn’t this the whole point of information held on a central database? It seems they are just trying to reproduce the experience of the physical card but with added disadvantages.

That would be good customer service. Hence why the railways don't do it

 

[Wallsendmag]

If she had passed through the barriers then she had attempted to travel, not being able to show a railcard could have been dealt with by excessing the ticket which at the time would have left her out of pocket up until a refund was given, or by taking details and reporting the matter as done here, allowing an opportunity to present the railcard at a later date. I wonder if you could post a copy of the letter, with any personal details redacted?

You shouldn't X/S away a railcard discount, the rules say a new ticket should be purchased and a refund obtained on the original.

 

[John Palmer]

Side point, the letter has the journey details the wrong way around.

I disagree. This is not a side point, but goes to the heart of what response should be made to the GWR Head of Revenue's letter. Unless and until GWR indicates that that letter was in error, and should have read "BRISTOL TEMPLE MEADS to BICESTER VILLAGE", the correct course for the OP's daughter to take is to respond to the allegation of ticketless travel exactly as it has been set out in the letter posted by the OP. It is completely inappropriate to speculate that GWR intended to make some different allegation and respond accordingly, because it is entirely possible that the Head of Revenue's letter sets out exactly the allegation GWR intended.

Having now seen the copy of that letter I see no reason to change the form of reply I suggested in post #19. Deal with what GWR have written, not with what you suspect they intended to write.

 

[Dai Corner]

I disagree. This is not a side point, but goes to the heart of what response should be made to the GWR Head of Revenue's letter. Unless and until GWR indicates that that letter was in error, and should have read "BRISTOL TEMPLE MEADS to BICESTER VILLAGE", the correct course for the OP's daughter to take is to respond to the allegation of ticketless travel exactly as it has been set out in the letter posted by the OP. It is completely inappropriate to speculate that GWR intended to make some different allegation and respond accordingly, because it is entirely possible that the Head of Revenue's letter sets out exactly the allegation GWR intended.

Having now seen the copy of that letter I see no reason to change the form of reply I suggested in post #19. Deal with what GWR have written, not with what you suspect they intended to write.

Having seen the letter I now concur with the above.

I might respond along the lines of 'I don't recall being asked, and fail, to show a valid ticket railcard on my journey between Bicester Village and Bristol Temple Meads. Please could you advise where and when you allege this happened?'

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having seen the letter I now concur with the above.

I might respond along the lines of 'I don't recall being asked, and fail, to show a valid ticket railcard on my journey between Bicester Village and Bristol Temple Meads. Please could you advise where and when you allege this happened?'

I wouldn't do this. They will correct it and play hardball.

 

[Dai Corner]

I wouldn't do this. They will correct it and play hardball.

If they did that I'd use the 'once a year' exemption, but there's no point in using it unnecessarily.

 

[Western Sunset]

One could begin the reply by stating that "I don't recall being asked, and fail, to show a valid ticket between Bicester and Bristol." but then go on by saying they recall being stopped on the return journey and explain the circumstances of that. As Bletch suggests, don't try to be too clever. Just be honest and open.

 

[John Palmer]

I wouldn't do this. They will correct it and play hardball.

GWR were already playing hardball by reporting for prosecution rather than requiring purchase of a replacement ticket or issuing a penalty fare. Unless you have access to inside information you simply cannot know whether GWR intended to write something other than what they actually wrote. This isn't a case of trying to be 'too clever'; if you refer to an allegation that hasn't yet been made, you may inadvertently encourage the prosecutor to pursue something that hadn't previously occurred to him.

I repeat, deal with what GWR have actually written.

 

[Bletchleyite]

GWR were already playing hardball by reporting for prosecution rather than requiring purchase of a replacement ticket or issuing a penalty fare. Unless you have access to inside information you simply cannot know whether GWR intended to write something other than what they actually wrote. This isn't a case of trying to be 'too clever'; if you refer to an allegation that hasn't yet been made, you may inadvertently encourage the prosecutor to pursue something that hadn't previously occurred to him.

I repeat, deal with what GWR have actually written.

And I repeat, this will be seen as being a "smart ****" and will result in them being as awkward as they can.

The correct thing to do is engage with them honestly, and as per the letter send evidence of the Railcard.

 

[RPI]

So having seen the letter that the OP has now posted, it is quite clearly stated on the letter that if the issue is about a digital ticket or railcard then to contact them saying so at the email address provided on the letter.......

You shouldn't X/S away a railcard discount, the rules say a new ticket should be purchased and a refund obtained on the original.

Not with the case of forgotten/unable to show at the time railcard, the brief to GWR staff is very clear on the issue that its either an excess or a method that involves taking no money from the customer at the time such as MG11/UFN/PFN.

Going back to the letter, I'll concede that it could be clearer but on reading it properly it quite clearly states what to do about a railcard that wasn't able to be shown at the time, in line with the forgotten railcard policy.

 

[spag23]

So having seen the letter that the OP has now posted, it is quite clearly stated on the letter that if the issue is about a digital ticket or railcard then to contact them saying so at the email address provided on the letter.......


Not with the case of forgotten/unable to show at the time railcard, the brief to GWR staff is very clear on the issue that its either an excess or a method that involves taking no money from the customer at the time such as MG11/UFN/PFN.

Going back to the letter, I'll concede that it could be clearer but on reading it properly it quite clearly states what to do about a railcard that wasn't able to be shown at the time, in line with the forgotten railcard policy.

But surely the only time she was asked to show the card was before she had boarded the return train and - we are told - NOT in compulsory ticket area. So she never committed any offence at that - or any other - time.
It looks like the TOC have speculatively applied her cardless status to the previous journey, even though they have no evidence of this. And she wasn't cardless on that journey anyway. So I agree with John Palmer; reply to what the TOC wrote, asking for their evidence of their challenging her on the journey they specified.

 

[RPI]

But surely the only time she was asked to show the card was before she had boarded the return train and - we are told - NOT in compulsory ticket area. So she never committed any offence at that - or any other - time.
It looks like the TOC have speculatively applied her cardless status to the previous journey, even though they have no evidence of this. And she wasn't cardless on that journey anyway. So I agree with John Palmer; reply to what the TOC wrote, asking for their evidence of their challenging her on the journey they specified.

As already stated, the traveller had passed through the ticket barriers, its irrelevant whether its a compulsory ticket area or not, if she was intending to travel then the the TOC can ask to see a valid ticket.

But all of that aside, the easiest thing to do is simply reply to the email address presenting a digital image of the railcard, then thats the end of the matter.

)Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 2 on the standard scale].

(2)If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses [F2or fails] on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company F3... may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

(3)If any person—

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

My bold and italics above, from the Regulation of Railways act 1889.

Now, the argument is whether the traveller attempted to avoid their fare, obviously upon receipt of facts that weren't available to the inspector at the time then no, but with what the inspector had in front of them at the time they had reason to suspect that the outward portion of the ticket may have been used without a valid railcard and on the return portion the inspector had reason to suspect that the traveller was attempting or intending to travel on an invalid ticket as the railcard could not be produced, the mechanism to correcting this is to produce the railcard when written to by the TOC, which is all that is required to make this end. The advice to basically try other technicalities is reckless at the very least.

 

[Western Sunset]

As RPI suggests by their comment: "The easiest thing to do is simply reply to the email address presenting a digital image of the railcard, then that's the end of the matter."

That must be the approach to take. Only if that route fails, and from all the above I really can't see why it wouldn't, then other ways might be necessary to pursue.

 

[Watershed]

As already stated, the traveller had passed through the ticket barriers, its irrelevant whether its a compulsory ticket area or not, if she was intending to travel then the the TOC can ask to see a valid ticket.

But all of that aside, the easiest thing to do is simply reply to the email address presenting a digital image of the railcard, then thats the end of the matter.

The only offence that could be committed at this point would be under RoRA section 5(3)(a), as you say. And that is not concerned with whether the correct ticket and documentation is held - but whether the correct fare has been paid.

Given that the OP's daughter was in fact the holder of a valid Railcard, they had paid the correct fare by buying a Railcard discounted fare. The fact they they couldn't produce that Railcard is immaterial given that at that point, they had not yet boarded any train.

 

[RPI]

As RPI suggests by their comment: "The easiest thing to do is simply reply to the email address presenting a digital image of the railcard, then that's the end of the matter."

That must be the approach to take. Only if that route fails, and from all the above I really can't see why it wouldn't, then other ways might be necessary to pursue.

Absolutely, then after that take up any issues with procedures etc with the relevant

The only offence that could be committed at this point would be under RoRA section 5(3)(a), as you say. And that is not concerned with whether the correct ticket and documentation is held - but whether the correct fare has been paid.

Given that the OP's daughter was in fact the holder of a valid Railcard, they had paid the correct fare by buying a Railcard discounted fare. The fact they they couldn't produce that Railcard is immaterial given that at that point, they had not yet boarded any train.

Yes, the point i'm making though is why this course of action was taken, the TOC employee could have insisted on an excess being paid which would leave the traveller out of pocket until such time as this was reimbursed, at that point in time the TOC employee had a valid reason to suspect that the correct fare may not have been paid so under the circumstances this seems to have been the best course of action to take.

But again, the traveller needs to simply send an email with a digital image of the railcard in order to sort this problem out.

 

[Hadders]

All the OP needs to do is send a copy of the railcard to GWR with a covering letter and that should be the end of the matter.

I don’t think it’s wise to get into arguments of the minutiae of errors between what journey the OP’s daughter made and what is written in the letter. If you do that it is likely to cause more hassle as GWR could send another (correct) letter.

 

[spag23]

To avoid going round in circles, I think we are all agreed that she should send a letter plus a copy of the railcard.
But the TOC's description of the journey they intend to prosecute her for is not minutae. It is the very core of their case that she made this journey in breach of the conditions. They did this, knowing they could not pursue the return leg, as she had approached an official before even attempting to board the train, and then complied with their instructions for that journey.
I was going to add more, but I'd only be repeating post #14.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To avoid going round in circles, I think we are all agreed that she should send a letter plus a copy of the railcard.
But the TOC's description of the journey they intend to prosecute her for is not minutae. It is the very core of their case that she made this journey in breach of the conditions. They did this, knowing they could not pursue the return leg, as she had approached an official before even attempting to board the train, and then complied with their instructions for that journey.
I was going to add more, but I'd only be repeating post #14.

I very much doubt it's that. It's just an all too common error.

 

[AlterEgo]

It seems pretty clear the TOC has simply made an error in getting the journeys the wrong way around.

The easiest, lowest-friction, and best-chance way of securing an outcome which involves being let off and paying no money is simply to apologise and send a copy of the railcard. I do think we should be mindful that we are often dealing with people who want a quick and easy resolution and who aren't interested in the long, clever clogs way around things.

 

[Dai Corner]

It seems pretty clear the TOC has simply made an error in getting the journeys the wrong way around.

The easiest, lowest-friction, and best-chance way of securing an outcome which involves being let off and paying no money is simply to apologise and send a copy of the railcard. I do think we should be mindful that we are often dealing with people who want a quick and easy resolution and who aren't interested in the long, clever clogs way around things.

True. But there is a downside in that using the 'once a year' exemption now means it cannot be used for another 12 months. Its a decision for the OP's daughter to make now we've all given advice.

 

[Snow1964]

Keep it simple, send in copy of railcard as per letter. Nothing else about possible inconsistencies.

If (and only if) this gets rejected should the detail be considered, then can start to go into detail about if walking across a concourse is travelling on the railway, or they are looking at the wrong journey.