A Travelcard that isn't a Travelcard...

[adtrainz]

I wasn't sure whether this belonged in this forum or the other fares forum, so feel free to move it if necessary.

I purchased 2 Adult and 2 Child O-P Day Travelcards on the Southern website with FAM discount. I collected these from a TVM at Chichester station.

The Adult tickets came out as expected, a single ticket with roundel and "Day Travelcard" on the top. However, the Child tickets were printed as two separate coupons, one from Chichester to London Zones 1-6, and a return in the other direction. As shown in the picture, they are not Zone U1* type tickets, and do not bear the roundel.

I queried this at the gateline at Chichester who confirmed that it would work as a Travelcard in London. The ticket was accepted at Victoria, and returned to me again at Westminster. However, upon returning to Westminster the ticket did not work, much in the way of a Zone U1* type, but we were allowed through at the assistance gate. Again at South Kensington, the ticket was accepted and returned.

At Leicester Square, the ticket would not work the barriers as expected, but the gateline staff point blank refused to allow us to pass. I reinforced the point that it was not a Zone U1* type, and that Southern had confirmed it was a Travelcard. The ticket office agreed with the barrier staff, leading to the purchase of another Travelcard, as shown in the attachment with receipt (the other child is under 10, and so travelled free). I didn't use the return portion of the ticket until departing Victoria on NR.

So, to cut a long story short, I was sold a Travelcard by Southern that only appeared to function as a Zone U1* type ticket. Some LU staff accepted it after first use, but some didn't. I therefore have two questions before I continue.

1. What is the ticket I was sold? (A return from Chichester to London Zones 1-6 does not even exist on BR Fares!)

2. Therefore, who is in the wrong here? (I have a strong inclination it might be Southern, in that the TVM/booking system printed the wrong type of ticket, given it was a flat fare.)

I know the dispute is only over £3.40, but I want to stop any other people being caught out by this.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Urban Gateline]

I have seen this ticket before when I used to work at a Gateline in London, and thought I was imagining things at first! It is an Outboundary Travelcard (Chichester to Z1-6) but it comes printed as an Outward and Return portion, I'm not sure why that is though! I'm pretty sure it's down to Southern though, some sort of mistake with their TVM's or booking/TOD system!

 

[maniacmartin]

It's almost certainly caused by the ticket type being CHILD FLTRATE R, whereas all other travelcards have one of the Travelcard ticket types. Whether this is the fault of Southern or the TVM owner I'm not sure. Either way, it's clearly an issuing error so you should have no problem claiming the £3.40 back from Southern

The gateline assistant should have known better than to say it will be accepted as a Travelcard!

 

[Mojo]

The ticket has been issued incorrectly (not sure how, but I believe it is a system rather than user error) by either the TVM from which it was collected, or the website.

 

[adtrainz]

Exactly as I expected. I'll try contacting Southern tomorrow.

Thanks for the help.

 

[furlong]

Looking at brfares you were issued TKR CHILD FLTFARE R not FTC OFF-PEAK FAM TC.

The text on brfares says for the Family Travelcard there are no railcard discounts.

So your choices were:
1) buy normal ODT travelcards with the FAM railcard discount;
2) use your Railcard for adult ODT travelcards together with the Flatfare child tickets (that do not include underground travel) and buy separate travelcards for the children on the underground (according to their ages); or
3) buy the FTC Family Travelcard.

You can price those up to see which combination is cheaper. Confusing, definitely. (And of course the website's owner would probably be at fault if the site sold a set of tickets that did not cover the complete journey you specified without making this clear.)

 

[Haywain]

Looking at brfares you were issued TKR CHILD FLTFARE R not FTC OFF-PEAK FAM TC.

The text on brfares says for the Family Travelcard there are no railcard discounts.

So your choices were:
1) buy normal ODT travelcards with the FAM railcard discount;
2) use your Railcard for adult ODT travelcards together with the Flatfare child tickets (that do not include underground travel) and buy separate travelcards for the children on the underground (according to their ages); or
3) buy the FTC Family Travelcard.

You can price those up to see which combination is cheaper. Confusing, definitely. (And of course the website's owner would probably be at fault if the site sold a set of tickets that did not cover the complete journey you specified without making this clear.)

Or 4) Go to a (Southern) ticket office where they should issue the discounted adult ticket and flat fare child tickets (the correct child tickets).

 

[alex17595]

It's almost certainly caused by the ticket type being CHILD FLTRATE R, whereas all other travelcards have one of the Travelcard ticket types. Whether this is the fault of Southern or the TVM owner I'm not sure. Either way, it's clearly an issuing error so you should have no problem claiming the £3.40 back from Southern

The gateline assistant should have known better than to say it will be accepted as a Travelcard!

I have a Southampton - zones 1-6 CHILD FLTFARER ticket and that came printed with a 'Day Travelcard' tag on it. I assume it would have worked the barrier but never used it.

This was printed from the then new TVM at Castle Cary.

 

[bb21]

It is a programming error.

I think the fault in this case lies with the ticket office staff at Leicester Square so a refund should be sought from LU.

 

[island]

I would have said this was a TVM programming error, by printing as a return rather than a Travelcard. But I could be wrong.

 

[sarahj]

There is a error in the system, if a pass on train asks for a kids for a quid travel card and you add CCH to 0035 into an advantix, you get two options, a super off peak travel card and a family travel card. Picking the super off peak travel card will print two tickets, CCH to 0786 (ie to zones 1-6) out and rtn. A FTC with produce a travelcard. This has been noted, but change can take time. I thought this was just an advantix issue, but i guess not.

When Super off peak travel cards were introduced, for the first few months, all that ever printed were two tickets, and out and return to zones 1-6.

An example was yesterday a pass asked for a a child and two adults with a family railcard. I did two superoff peak travel cards for the adults, applied the family railcard discount, then put that into the shopping basket. Then did a child family travel card as a kids for a quid. Thus three travel cards popped out.

I'd speak to customer services.

(CCH is just an example, as its Chicester where the pass was traveling from, but valid from all souther stations.)

 

[adtrainz]

More than 2 months on from the incident, the wheels clunked into action at Southern and I finally received my £3.40 back with a £10 goodwill voucher.

Not before...

1. Writing a rather long e-mail of complaint to Southern, including an attachment with scans of the tickets.

2. Following up this e-mail after no reply.

3. And again...

4. And again...

5. And again...

6. In late September, tweeting @SouthernRailUK, from which I am told I have to send the tickets in to Customer Services with a covering letter and the refund will be sent out.

7. Waiting 15 days...

8. Getting a letter from the refunds department saying I am ineligible because I didn't apply within 28 days (because of their inability to reply to e-mails)

9. Wasting time calling Southern's Customer Services, taking 20 minutes for them to:

Fill in my details.
Turn off the computer.
Turn the computer on again.
Take my details again.
Change the person I am speaking to.
Eventually issue a £10 'goodwill gesture'.​

At this point, I was willing to accept this, since it refunded the cost of the ticket, and then some. Was it going to replace the cash I spent? Was it ever! £10 RTV, and because it was 'goodwill', not exchangeable for cash as per Southern's normal policy.

Annoyed that they had washed their hands of the affair with 'goodwill', never apologising, not refunding the ticket I didn't need to purchase with the method I purchased it with, I moved on to step 10.

10. Sending the whole case to Passenger Focus.

Ridiculed in places on this forum, I sent everything to them, and within a week, I received a fantastic reply, full of grovelling apologies from Southern and promises to fix the system everywhere it went wrong. The £3.40 will be refunded in cash, and they even let me keep the £10 RTV as a 'goodwill gesture'...

Passenger Focus made everything happen, very quickly. An excellent demonstration of why we need a passenger watchdog.

Southern, on the other hand, tried at every stage to get away with not refunding me, but eventually gave up and did the right thing.

Incidentally, I might be using a FAM-discounted travelcard in the near future. Wish me luck...

 

[yorkie]

Thanks for updating us.

Passenger Focus can handle some simple, clear issues well, and I am glad they did so effectively on this occasion.

They probably got through to someone at Southern who realised what a shambles they've made of this matter. That is key! Sometimes the TOC refuses to budge, and when that happens Passenger Focus are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

We don't have a knowledgeable, consistently good, and fully independent passenger watchdog who really sticks up for passengers and force the TOCs to behave. I don't believe we ever will either.

A passenger who was valid by both the 'shortest route rule' and holding an itinerary, still has not had a satisfactory response by Passenger Focus, because the TOC concerned (SouthEastern) refuse to adhere to the NRCoC and refuse to honour itineraries, and Passenger Focus has absolutely no powers whatsoever and refuse to even speak to the passenger about the matter.

 

[PG]

<snip>
We don't have a knowledgeable, consistently good, and fully independent passenger watchdog who really sticks up for passengers and force the TOCs to behave. I don't believe we ever will either.

I know this will come across as a dire/draconian/OTT etc suggestion (so I'm ready to be shot down in flames)
... Would a passenger in the situation of being due money (but not receiving it) from a TOC (any TOC) be able, since AFAIK all the TOC's are Limited companies, to petition a court for a winding up order?

Usually the mere threat of a winding up order is sufficient to put a rocket up the proverbial of the directors of any Limited company since IIUC their assets are frozen!

 

[yorkie]

I understand one or two passengers are considering whether they can take extreme measures, yes.

I don't want to suggest PF are always bad, as that isn't the case at all, but most of the issues that they can resolve can be resolved by talking to a senior person within the TOC. Even by railway customer service standards, I am surprised Southern treated the OP so badly. I am not, however, surprised that PF were able to intervene in that particular case.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Would a passenger in the situation of being due money (but not receiving it) from a TOC (any TOC) be able, since AFAIK all the TOC's are Limited companies, to petition a court for a winding up order?

Yes.

If there is a Court Order which remains unpaid then that is an option for the Claimant.
The debt must be over a threshold (from memory it is currently £750) and there is a non-recoverable Court Fee of £220 (or £40 in the County Court).

There is a less expensive option (a fee of £50) which is an Order to Obtain Information which requires the Company to attend the Court (at pain of Contempt of Court) and explain, with evidence, that they have the means to pay the Claim.

The Comapny can ask for an adjournment, and they generally would, so this strategy becomes a sterile game of "who can be the most annoying to the other party?" where the only real benefit is an opportunity to inform a media story with the phrase that "the Company was taken to Court by a passenger" and any embellishment that a good hack can add to the back of it.

 

[martybabes]

I know this will come across as a dire/draconian/OTT etc suggestion (so I'm ready to be shot down in flames)
... Would a passenger in the situation of being due money (but not receiving it) from a TOC (any TOC) be able, since AFAIK all the TOC's are Limited companies, to petition a court for a winding up order?

Usually the mere threat of a winding up order is sufficient to put a rocket up the proverbial of the directors of any Limited company since IIUC their assets are frozen!

As far as I recall (and this is not an area where I have recent experience) you have first to serve a Statutory Demand and, if this doesn't generate a payment, then you can commence court proceedings. The court fee is around £200 which has to be paid up front.

If you're waiting for a refund of only a tenner or so, dire/draconian/OTT or even desperate would seem to be about right!

 

[PG]

The Comapny can ask for an adjournment, and they generally would, so this strategy becomes a sterile game of "who can be the most annoying to the other party?" where the only real benefit is an opportunity to inform a media story with the phrase that "the Company was taken to Court by a passenger" and any embellishment that a good hack can add to the back of it.

Okay so you'd have to be one seriously p****d off passenger to go down that avenue.

Given the recent media publicity re Myres v FCC and the subsequent wholesale hacking about with the Routing Guide it seems any day in court comes at a price!

 

[RJ]

Yes.

If there is a Court Order which remains unpaid then that is an option for the Claimant.
The debt must be over a threshold (from memory it is currently £750) and there is a non-recoverable Court Fee of £220 (or £40 in the County Court).

There is a less expensive option (a fee of £50) which is an Order to Obtain Information which requires the Company to attend the Court (at pain of Contempt of Court) and explain, with evidence, that they have the means to pay the Claim.

The Comapny can ask for an adjournment, and they generally would, so this strategy becomes a sterile game of "who can be the most annoying to the other party?" where the only real benefit is an opportunity to inform a media story with the phrase that "the Company was taken to Court by a passenger" and any embellishment that a good hack can add to the back of it.

I think that people are clocking onto the fact that annoying a company is an effective way of reversing a company's intransigence in dealing with a complaint.

I can't give details but I've been offered what is essentially an out of court settlement for £££s by a TOC who previously fobbed me off until I took action that proved to be incredibly time and resource consuming for management who have other things to be getting on with. There is a price to be paid for not addressing complaints properly and whichever champion decided that it was a good idea to try and shut me out without dealing with the complaint satisfactorily is probably having to review their poor judgement!

I don't like corporations who wrong the little man and do anything but take actions to express an appropriate level remorse for that wrong.

 

[PG]

I think that people are clocking onto the fact that annoying a company is an effective way of reversing a company's intransigence in dealing with a complaint.

I can't give details but I've been offered what is essentially an out of court settlement for £££s by a TOC who previously fobbed me off until I took action that proved to be incredibly time and resource consuming for management who have other things to be getting on with. There is a price to be paid for not addressing complaints properly and whichever champion decided that it was a good idea to try and shut me out without dealing with the complaint satisfactorily is probably having to review their poor judgement!

I don't like corporations who wrong the little man and do anything but take actions to express an appropriate level remorse for that wrong.

Sad things seem to have to deteriorate to this level but true, if you become enough of a nuisance to any company, either by way of media image or costing them £££s through their time, then it will make them sit up and take notice!

Can't give details but management at my work ignored warnings until an incident occurred which will end up costing them £££s.

 

[island]

Yes.

If there is a Court Order which remains unpaid then that is an option for the Claimant.
The debt must be over a threshold (from memory it is currently £750) and there is a non-recoverable Court Fee of £220 (or £40 in the County Court).

There is a less expensive option (a fee of £50) which is an Order to Obtain Information which requires the Company to attend the Court (at pain of Contempt of Court) and explain, with evidence, that they have the means to pay the Claim.

The Comapny can ask for an adjournment, and they generally would, so this strategy becomes a sterile game of "who can be the most annoying to the other party?" where the only real benefit is an opportunity to inform a media story with the phrase that "the Company was taken to Court by a passenger" and any embellishment that a good hack can add to the back of it.

There can be one other benefit.

The boilerplate terms of many business loans state that they become fully repayable on demand if a petition is presented for the Borrower Company's winding-up.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't want to suggest PF are always bad, as that isn't the case at all, but most of the issues that they can resolve can be resolved by talking to a senior person within the TOC.

The problem with PF is that they are not an Ombudsman. They cannot make their own decisions and they cannot enforce them against a TOC. Essentially what PF do is discuss the matter with someone further up the food chain than an ordinary passenger can speak to, and hope that's enough to make the TOC see sense. In many cases it is, but when a TOC doesn't want to play ball there's nothing PF can do. In one case I had with Virgin Trains, VT point blank refused to even talk to PF. When that happens, there's nothing anybody can do.

And that's before we start talking about the "impartial appeals service" for penalty fares which is owned by, er, SouthEastern.

We need a proper Ombudsman for the railways, one who can make binding decisions and force TOCs to abide by them. Banks have it with the Financial Ombudsman and it's high time that the railways had it. The Financial Ombudsman charges a bank £500 for every complaint received, and can force a bank to issue up to £100k in compensation. That sort of clout would really focus a few minds at ATOC.

 

[Wolfie]

I know this will come across as a dire/draconian/OTT etc suggestion (so I'm ready to be shot down in flames)
... Would a passenger in the situation of being due money (but not receiving it) from a TOC (any TOC) be able, since AFAIK all the TOC's are Limited companies, to petition a court for a winding up order?

Usually the mere threat of a winding up order is sufficient to put a rocket up the proverbial of the directors of any Limited company since IIUC their assets are frozen!

Obtaining a Court Order and sending bailiffs in to seize goods for disposal tends to have a salutory effect as well.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem with PF is that they are not an Ombudsman. They cannot make their own decisions and they cannot enforce them against a TOC. Essentially what PF do is discuss the matter with someone further up the food chain than an ordinary passenger can speak to, and hope that's enough to make the TOC see sense. In many cases it is, but when a TOC doesn't want to play ball there's nothing PF can do. In one case I had with Virgin Trains, VT point blank refused to even talk to PF. When that happens, there's nothing anybody can do.

And that's before we start talking about the "impartial appeals service" for penalty fares which is owned by, er, SouthEastern.

We need a proper Ombudsman for the railways, one who can make binding decisions and force TOCs to abide by them. Banks have it with the Financial Ombudsman and it's high time that the railways had it. The Financial Ombudsman charges a bank £500 for every complaint received, and can force a bank to issue up to £100k in compensation. That sort of clout would really focus a few minds at ATOC.

Spot on! How the current Penalty Fares regime complies (my view is that it doesn't) with the European Convention of Human Rights (right to a fair trial) is a legal case waiting to happen.....

 

[Clip]

Obtaining a Court Order and sending bailiffs in to seize goods for disposal tends to have a salutory effect as well.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Spot on! How the current Penalty Fares regime complies (my view is that it doesn't) with the European Convention of Human Rights (right to a fair trial) is a legal case waiting to happen.....

I believe PF that Artic Troll was referring to was Passenger Focus.

I am unsure about a penalty fare being contested in the ECHR. In the whole they are issued correctly and to passengers who travel without a ticket - if you want to actually give people the right to a trial in such circumstances you're going to have to build more court rooms im afraid and pay for for the lawyers to go and prosecute them IMO. And for what? Higher penaltys to the passenger when they get fined an awful lot more?

 

[PG]

And that's before we start talking about the "impartial appeals service" for penalty fares which is owned by, er, SouthEastern.

We need a proper Ombudsman for the railways, one who can make binding decisions and force TOCs to abide by them. Banks have it with the Financial Ombudsman and it's high time that the railways had it. The Financial Ombudsman charges a bank £500 for every complaint received, and can force a bank to issue up to £100k in compensation. That sort of clout would really focus a few minds at ATOC.

Perhaps they can be done under Trade Descriptions Act for misuse of the term impartial

It kind of seems like the railways need an equivalent to the Traffic Commissioners in the bus industry though it seems unlikely while ATOC et al can brainwash Dft that PF is capable of looking after passengers interests.
Whatever else Dft stands for it isn't Department for Trains so they just look the other way when it suits them!

 

[island]

Spot on! How the current Penalty Fares regime complies (my view is that it doesn't) with the European Convention of Human Rights (right to a fair trial) is a legal case waiting to happen.....

Although the post you quoted referred to Passenger Focus, the official Penalty Fares scheme is fully compliant with the ECHR. A passenger issued a Penalty Fare is entitled to choose to have his/her day in county/magistrates court and receive a fair trial there.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I believe PF that Artic Troll was referring to was Passenger Focus.

It was, although I did also refer to the "independent" IPFAS, owned by SouthEastern.

IPFAS claim they are independent of SouthEastern, and that their procedures comply with the Human Rights Act, but they don't provide any evidence of this on their website (which contains just enough spelling mistakes to make one think they are morons). It's no wonder most people do not believe them.

A Penalty Fare is a fee, not a criminal or civil legal action, therefore the "right to a fair trial" would not apply to them. The "right to a fair trial" is covered when RPSS (also completely independent of SouthEastern, naturally, and also conveniently independent of IPFAS, meaning you cough up then appeal afterwards) commence civil or criminal legal proceedings against you for non payment of that fee.

The issue is that you get issued a Penalty Fare by SouthEastern, and then SouthEastern decide whether it was correct. I'd love to see the numbers of appeals that get upheld when that happens, but of course IPFAS is conveniently not a "public body" so FOI requests won't work.

There's nobody in this industry to put a stop to TOCs behaving badly, so they continue to behave badly. You have to say that's entirely wrong in one of the few industries where strict liability criminal offences have been created to protect revenue for private companies.

 

[maniacmartin]

IPFAS claim they are independent of SouthEastern, and that their procedures comply with the Human Rights Act, but they don't provide any evidence of this on their website (which contains just enough spelling mistakes to make one think they are morons). It's no wonder most people do not believe them.

Didn't the DfT review them and judge them to count as 'independent' as the department is run at sufficiently arms-length to the rest of the company?
They're not just owned by SE, they are the same registered company!

 

[Clip]

There's nobody in this industry to put a stop to TOCs behaving badly, so they continue to behave badly. You have to say that's entirely wrong in one of the few industries where strict liability criminal offences have been created to protect revenue for private companies.

Thats not really fair or accurate, seeing as the Penalty Fare scheme was introduced in the 80s when it was a nationalised railway.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Penalty Fares were introduced in 1992, and IPFAS is effectively the 'son' of the original Network SouthEast Revenue Protection office in Portsmouth that dealt with the appeals.