Bayford to Crews Hill - conflicting information given regarding requirement to purchase a ticket

[yorkie]

We arrived at Bayford station wanting to travel to Crews Hill. We had just missed a train; the next train was cancelled and therefore we had a wait of nearly an hour.

The station is unstaffed and the ticket machines don't accept cash or rail travel vouchers. We used the help point and stated we wished to purchase two super off peak singles with a two together railcard using the vouchers.

The help point operative told us we were unable to travel without authorisation from a member of staff. We pointed out that the station was unstaffed and the train may not have any staff other than the driver. The operative told us we could not travel unless we spoke directly with the company and that if we did not receive prior permission we could not travel.

We then called GTR customer services, who said that we could board the train however we would need to walk the length of the train to determine if a member of staff was on board; if there was we would need to ask them to purchase a ticket. They stated that Crews Hill was a staffed station and that if we were unable to pay on board we should pay the staff there.

This process took a considerable amount of time; we only had enough time to go through this process without incurring further delay because the next train was cancelled.

We boarded the train and I walked the entire length of the train and saw no sign of a member of staff. We alighted at Crews Hill, where there was also no sign of staff. We pressed the help point button and spoke to someone who said that there was no facility to take payment at Crews Hill and therefore we were free to leave without purchasing a ticket. I asked if the company would like to send an invoice and it was confirmed this was not necessary and we were free to leave, which we did.

So we didn't have an opportunity to pay the fare (which in turn meant we didn't need to claim half of it back in Delay Repay compensation!)

I don't think it is acceptable that passengers are told they are unable to travel in such circumstances, nor do I think that it is reasonable to instruct passengers to walk through the entire length of a train looking for a member of staff.

 

[gray1404]

In the situation when a passenger is boarding at a station without facilities to be able to pay by their chosen payment method, my understanding is that the passenger has not yet had an opportunity to purchase. Therefore, they are allowed to board the train and pay at the first opportunity. They are not under any duty to go looking for a member of staff on board and should simply take a seat and wait for a ticket check.

If they are changing trains (which does not apply to the situation above) and there are falcities at that station to be able to buy the ticket and pay in the method of the customers choosing, they should do so there. However, this is provided there is enough time to do some and the passenger is not required to miss their connection. Again, not applying in this case, having taken a seat on the next train the customer should purchase on board the next train if possible. Again they are not required to look for staff and should take a seat and wait for staff to come through selling tickets/checking tickets.

If they reach their destination then should pay the fare there if facilities exist and the customers chosen payment method is accepted. If this is not possible because it is an unmanned station (or the ticket office is closed and any ticket machine cannot fulfill the task) then the customer has completed their entire journey and the railway has yet to give them an opportunity to purchase. The customer has no option but to walk away without paying and the railway has lost their opportunity to charge the fare.

There is also no requirement for the customer to use help points or phone customer service to get permission to travel before starting their journey when boarding at a station without ticket selling facilities and the customers payment method not being accepted.

The slight moot point to this is that at some stations it may be a requirement to obtain a Permit to Travel in such a situation. Some Northern stations allow customer to print a Promise To Pay Notice, which in essence acts as a Permit to Travel. However, I understand that the legal status of Northern's Promise To Pay notices is disputed.

 

[RJ]

The National Rail Conditions of Travel aren't really known about by all customer facing staff. By now I don't think this is any kind of secret and it's not a problem that is easy to fix.

Best to deal with the reality rather than how things should be. As such, travel in accordance with what the conditions say and deal with any issues as and when they arise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The National Rail Conditions of Travel aren't really known about by all customer facing staff. By now I don't think this is any kind of secret and it's not a problem that is easy to fix.

Isn't it? Multiple clear posters on each station with the rules would help.

 

[_toommm_]

Isn't it? Multiple clear posters on each station with the rules would help.

A lot of the staff I've experienced where I've had to bring the NRCoT into our discourse either aren't aware of some of the more basic rules e.g. 14.2, or are still quoting the NRCoC which afforded invariably less rights to the passengers in the way I've had to quote it.

 

[Aictos]

Firstly Bayford and Crews Hill are unstaffed and have been for years indeed the GN timetables used to list the opening times of the ticket offices and surprise surprise both were listed as unstaffed.

This being said, it’s poor that TOC staff don’t even know the basics of if one of their stations has staffing or not and is downright dumb to give wrong advice like you got.

Secondly, Crews Hill doesn’t have a TVM and as such you cannot be charged a PF if travelling from that station, this was the policy under FCC and I believe still is.

So no idea why you got really bad advice, I can only suggest that the staff you spoke to need retraining ASAP!

 

[RJ]

Isn't it? Multiple clear posters on each station with the rules would help.

Ultimately the NRCOT is a long technical document. For the contents to be adhered to, it has to be known about and then comprehended.

Any job has some element of learning involved but the railways do not expect staff to read the Conditions of Travel or actively encourage them to keep up to date on it. There's a divide between what the powers that be dictate should happen and what actually happens at ground level. Personally I am very much a believer in having the knowledge and skills to do the job right as it makes working conditions easier and customer relations better. Not everyone agrees.

I think there are more than enough past stories to establish that things aren't always necessarily as they should be in terms of getting accurate advice on ticketing matters. If something is adversely affecting you, like a member of staff trying to take more money off than you owe or physically stop you from travelling then by all means challenge it. If it's something that doesn't really affect you at all is there much point in worrying about it?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The help point operative told us we were unable to travel without authorisation from a member of staff.

Is this another "help point" that is routed to the useless NRE telephone line?

I'd have more joy asking my 18 month old daughter about ticketing than those clowns.

Isn't it? Multiple clear posters on each station with the rules would help.

My experience is that many staff don't understand it, and there is no real desire for TOCs to train them on it. A lot of the industry still works on "what I reckon".

 

[PeterC]

A lot of the staff I've experienced where I've had to bring the NRCoT into our discourse either aren't aware of some of the more basic rules e.g. 14.2, or are still quoting the NRCoC which afforded invariably less rights to the passengers in the way I've had to quote it.

Much the same in other industries that I have worked in. Training seems to be a form of "Chinese whispers" learning from somebody who was taught by somebody who was .... etc etc with nobody ever required to RTFM

 

[RJ]

A lot of the staff I've experienced where I've had to bring the NRCoT into our discourse either aren't aware of some of the more basic rules e.g. 14.2, or are still quoting the NRCoC which afforded invariably less rights to the passengers in the way I've had to quote it.

Condition 14 isn't basic unfortunately. It's unfair to assume that everyone was taught how to interpret written information in the same way.

A few will only read the first part of Condition 14, decide that it says that the train must stop where you split tickets (when that's not what it says at all) and refuse to read any further!

 

[Starmill]

Is this another "help point" that is routed to the useless NRE telephone line?

It sounds like it to me, but at many stations that is the only way that is provided to speak to a member of staff, because there are none present, none available to speak to onboard trains, and no way to contact the customer relations of the company by using the help point.

Ultimately the NRCOT is a long technical document. For the contents to be adhered to, it has to be known about and then comprehended.

Quite. But the customer appears to have been told they mustn't travel by the station help point. What does the typical customer do in that circumstance? What do you recommend? Give up and go home? ​

 

[Starmill]

If you're dealing with someone like that the best thing to do is withdraw from the conversation.

I agree completely in practical terms. Of course, if you do that, you will find quite a lot of staff who explain to you that your tickets aren't valid and that you've not engaged with them when they've asked you to buy a valid ticket, so they will require your name and address in order to make a report for a prosecution on the basis of attempting to avoid paying the correct fare. Do you advocate totally ignoring staff who do that?

 

[sheff1]

Condition 14 isn't basic unfortunately. It's unfair to assume that everyone was taught how to interpret written information in the same way.

The first three words of the condition are "Unless shown below". An adult who needs to be taught how to interpret those three words really should not be employed in a job which requires assessment of whether or not tickets are valid.

I agree that if the person you are dealing with is that dim the best bet is to withdraw from the conversation.

 

[yorkie]

Is this another "help point" that is routed to the useless NRE telephone line?

Yes NRE manage it on behalf of GTR.

At Crews Hill, we spoke with GTR rather than NRE, however this may have been due to pressing the wrong button. They were the only person we spoke to who was knowledgeable and correct. It was a much shorter conversation than the others, which went on for ages. I don't know how long the NRE call went on for, but the call to customer services was almost 14mins including the holding time.

The rail industry (and especially companies like GTR) appears to work on the basis that it's better to have unknowledgeable staff (often contracted out) tied up for ages making things up than to actually invest in providing staff who can give correct answers in a matter of seconds.

 

[flipflop]

In 25 years of travelling in the Hereford Loop, I have almost never seen a member of staff on the train so you would have done very well to find one.

 

[sheff1]

I agree completely in practical terms. Of course, if you do that, you will find quite a lot of staff who explain to you that your tickets aren't valid and that you've not engaged with them when they've asked you to buy a valid ticket, so they will require your name and address in order to make a report for a prosecution on the basis of attempting to avoid paying the correct fare. Do you advocate totally ignoring staff who do that?

A passenger is required to provide a name and address to an authorised person who reasonably suspects that passenger of committing an offence. Somone who, as described by RJ, refuses to read the contractural conditions proffered by the passenger to confirm their tickets are valid can hardly have a reasonable suspicion.
If the authorised(sic) person does read the conditions, but lacks the intellectual ability to understand them, their suspicion might be more reasonable .. what is certainly unreasonable in that case is the fact that they have been appointed as an authorised person in the first place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Condition 14 isn't basic unfortunately. It's unfair to assume that everyone was taught how to interpret written information in the same way.

A few will only read the first part of Condition 14, decide that it says that the train must stop where you split tickets (when that's not what it says at all) and refuse to read any further!

Why is it unfair? Failure to read the whole thing and then enforce based on an incorrect reading is just "not doing your job properly". No two ways about it.

 

[TUC]

The National Rail Conditions of Travel aren't really known about by all customer facing staff. By now I don't think this is any kind of secret and it's not a problem that is easy to fix.

.

It is easy to fix, by staff simply doing what the rest of us do, and look up the NRCoT online if they are in any doubt. It's the NRCoT that is no secret.

 

[yorkie]

It is easy to fix, by staff simply doing what the rest of us do, and look up the NRCoT online if they are in any doubt. It's the NRCoT that is no secret.

I can't see the rail industry, and especially not GTR and NRE, to both instruct its staff to actually refer to the NRCoT (and relevant laws, conditions, briefings and instructions) instead of making things up and actually put into place sufficient checks and safeguards to ensure that actually happens.

That would require massive cultural change.

I agree with you that it should happen, but it's not going to happen.

 

[Starmill]

A passenger is required to provide a name and address to an authorised person who reasonably suspects that passenger of committing an offence.

Agreed but, is it a reliable defence against prosecution under the Railway Byelaws that the person asking you didn't reasonably suspect that you'd breached one of them, even if the argument that they didn't have reasonable suspicion is actually accepted? You would of course have submitted evidence confirming that you'd not given your name and address when asked.

Also if you won't give your name and address the Police are likely to be asked to get involved. Would you decide not to answer the questions of a PC, or ignore them and choose not to follow their instructions?

what is certainly unreasonable in that case is the fact that they have been appointed as an authorised person in the first place.

There can be no doubt about that.

 

[sheff1]

Agreed but, is it a reliable defence against prosecution under the Railway Byelaws that the person asking you didn't reasonably suspect that you'd breached one of them, even if the argument that they didn't have reasonable suspicion is actually accepted? You would of course have submitted evidence confirming that you'd not given your name and address when asked.

I can't say whether such a defence would be reliable (I think it should be). It would be interesting if anyone with first hand experience could comment.

 

[TUC]

I can't see the rail industry, and especially not GTR and NRE, to both instruct its staff to actually refer to the NRCoT (and relevant laws, conditions, briefings and instructions) instead of making things up and actually put into place sufficient checks and safeguards to ensure that actually happens.

That would require massive cultural change.

I agree with you that it should happen, but it's not going to happen.

I'm not even arguing for the TOC to require it. More saying that it's an obvious thing for staff to do on their own initiative.

I used to work in an advice centre. If someone came in with a query we did not know the answer to, the first thing we would do is look it up. We just regarded it as part of doing our job well.

 

[sheff1]

I used to work in an advice centre. If someone came in with a query we did not know the answer to, the right thing we would do is look it up. We just regarded it as part of doing our job well.

Indeed. An alien concept, though, in many parts of the UK rail industry.

 

[RJ]

I agree completely in practical terms. Of course, if you do that, you will find quite a lot of staff who explain to you that your tickets aren't valid and that you've not engaged with them when they've asked you to buy a valid ticket, so they will require your name and address in order to make a report for a prosecution on the basis of attempting to avoid paying the correct fare. Do you advocate totally ignoring staff who do that?

The type of railway customer who brings out the NRCoT has probably already gone above and beyond to explain to a member of staff why their ticket is valid. What else are they supposed to do?

Some people have a personality that includes a tendency to bully others if unsupervised. Being polite and quoting chapter and verse to these people just annoys them. Once someone is identified with this personality type, it's actually pretty easy to nip it in the bud and get them to go away without breaking any laws. These people need to be communicated with in a language that they understand which means taking control of the exchange away from them. Often they will not have the patience to do the whole name and address thing, preferring more dramatic action so things really need to be shut down before it reaches that point.

They'll also do a good job of manipulating others into thinking the customer was an abusive, aggressive fare evader who belittled them. With due respect, the sympathetic stance you take with this type of person isn't one I share. Bullying is rife on the railways, both internally and in some cases towards customers. I don't think painting out the bullies to being the victims helps matters.

 

[RJ]

A passenger is required to provide a name and address to an authorised person who reasonably suspects that passenger of committing an offence. Somone who, as described by RJ, refuses to read the contractural conditions proffered by the passenger to confirm their tickets are valid can hardly have a reasonable suspicion.
If the authorised(sic) person does read the conditions, but lacks the intellectual ability to understand them, their suspicion might be more reasonable .. what is certainly unreasonable in that case is the fact that they have been appointed as an authorised person in the first place.

The minimum standard for reasonable suspicion is set very low. If someone who works for the railway makes an incorrect assumption about the validity a customer's ticket, their opinion alone is enough to establish reasonable suspicion. If the whole case collapses later because of their initial misconception then it's hard lines and dismissed as a freak incident. As such the aim of the game should shift to steering the railways away from invoking any such laws in these cases.

Why is it unfair? Failure to read the whole thing and then enforce based on an incorrect reading is just "not doing your job properly". No two ways about it.

It's unfair because not everybody has the same ability to comprehend written information. For some roles, the railways don't necessarily test people's approach to comprehension or their level of autonomy when it comes to checking the rules. Some people will access the rule book and process the information they require in a timely manner. Others prefer to learn by being taught and retaining that knowledge, or by asking someone else. That in itself isn't the problem - it's what people do to bridge gaps in knowledge when an unfamiliar situation presents itself. Travel rules are so complex this is inevitable, but some people are terrified of losing face and would sooner make a guess than admit they need to check.

 

[RJ]

It sounds like it to me, but at many stations that is the only way that is provided to speak to a member of staff, because there are none present, none available to speak to onboard trains, and no way to contact the customer relations of the company by using the help point.

Quite. But the customer appears to have been told they mustn't travel by the station help point. What does the typical customer do in that circumstance? What do you recommend? Give up and go home? ​

As an adult and a pragmatist, I'm experienced enough to know that the advice other people give is not always 100% correct. People who believe everything they are told probably find themselves in sticky situations more than those who use their judgement.

If there are no staff about and you can't buy a ticket, I think most people would still embark on the journey.

 

[Starmill]

As such the aim of the game should shift to steering the railways away from invoking any such laws in these cases.

My experience suggests that there are some people who are dangerous enough to know that these laws are the source of their leverage in an interaction on a train, or after having already travelled on one, and who return to them quickly when presented with things they don't like. Perhaps not as many as the sort of "impatient" people you pointed out, but enough to have met several of them personally.

 

[sheff1]

The minimum standard for reasonable suspicion is set very low. If someone who works for the railway makes an incorrect assumption about the validity a customer's ticket, their opinion alone is enough to establish reasonable suspicion.

Can you provide an official source for this please. If such source specifically refers to a case where the railway employee point blank refused to read the relevant Terms & Conditions, so much the better.

 

[RJ]

Can you provide an official source for this please. If such source specifically refers to a case where the railway employee point blank refused to read the relevant Terms & Conditions, so much the better.

Life experience. The idea that a member of staff could ever make a mistake is alien to the authorities and most people within the industry. The customer is always wrong is the standard assumption.

The cases get trashcanned when subject matter experts within the industry step in but things can progress quite far before that happens.

In terms of total journeys made, the number of these incidents is so small that there is no policy for dealing with them. There are efficent ways of handling them however.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It sounds like it to me, but at many stations that is the only way that is provided to speak to a member of staff, because there are none present, none available to speak to onboard trains, and no way to contact the customer relations of the company by using the help point.

Oh definitely, using NRE to staff a help point is stupid. But it would explain a lot as, I said above, you'd get more sense out of my toddler.