FCC - Evening Peak, Incorrect Excess Fare Demand

[PTF62]

Last week a friend (yes, really) caught an FCC train out of Kings Cross to Knebworth, using the return portion of an Off Peak Day Return (Knebworth to London). It was the weekday 17:14 Kings Cross to Peterborough, second stop Knebworth.

The RPI who came round inspecting tickets insisted the my friends ticket was not valid as "you can't use an Off Peak ticket at 5pm", and "it doesn't make any difference that the ticket is only to Knebworth". Although my friend refered the RPI to the timetable where the restrictions are set out, the RPI apparently was unable and/or unwilling to read the timetable, and insisted that my friend pay an excess to upgrade the ticket to a Peak Day Return.

Now my friend knows the evening peak rules (and wisely IMO) simply paid the excess and will appeal it.

What I cannot understand is that this must be one of the simplest matters that an FCC RPI can come across, and they couldn't get it right.

 

[First class]

Firstly, you can't "appeal" an excess. You can write a complaint to FCC asking for an explanation and a refund.

Restriction : Y4
OUTWARD TRAVEL
Valid on the train shown and
all later services:
... [not relevant]
Knebworth 0943
... [not relevant]

RETURN TRAVEL
By any train.

It is NOT wise to hand over any cash in these circumstances. It makes it a lot harder to get it back. An Unpaid Fare Notice or MG11 would have been fine because no offence or irregularity had occured!

He will get his £2 back.

Either way, the RPI has got the restriction wrong, thinking it is J8 or 5J... and that's where it stops being simple... middle of rush hour, lots of passengers, lots of different restriction codes to different destinations. The RPI got this one wrong, but FCC fares strategy hasn't helped. If it's not simple for a passenger, will a poorly trained RPI understand any better?

 

[PTF62]

The RPI charged him £4 not £2, and my friend was not going to risk an MG11 for £4.

As for the excuse of middle of rush hour, etc, sorry that doesn't wash. If an FCC RPI doesn't know that the evening peak restriction doesn't apply unless you are holding a ticket for Stevenage and points further north, then they really ought to book themselves back in for refresher training. After all this is a restriction put in place by their employer.

 

[First class]

The RPI charged him £4 not £2, and my friend was not going to risk an MG11 for £4.

As for the excuse of middle of rush hour, etc, sorry that doesn't wash. If an FCC RPI doesn't know that the evening peak restriction doesn't apply unless you are holding a ticket for Stevenage and points further north, then they really ought to book themselves back in for refresher training. After all this is a restriction put in place by their employer.

The CDR (Off Peak) is £11.50
The SDR (Peak) is £13.60

Therefore if an evening peak DID apply then the excess is £2.10. So how did £4 come into it?

As for the RPI, is the Inspector to remember EVERY ticket combination restriction? If he was unsure he shouldn't have done anything, or at least rang somewhere up if possible. It is more the general "railway" not being very SIMPLE.

 

[PTF62]

The RPI charged them the difference between a Peak Day return £15.50 and the Off Peak £11.50.

I appreciate that the are a vast number of ticket combination restrictions, but as an FCC RPI on an FCC tran leaving Kings Cross northbound in the evening, then the one thing that you are 100% bound to come across are issues regarding the evening peak restriction.

So I would have assumed that anyone employed to enforce restrictions would know the rules on the restriction that they most likely to encounter, before they started demanding money (with the possible issue of an MG11 if someone doesn't pay up).

 

[First class]

The RPI charged the the difference between a Peak Day return £15.50 and the Off Peak £11.50.

I appreciate that the are a vast number of ticket combination restrictions, but as an FCC RPI on an FCC tran leaving Kings Cross northbound in the evening, then the one thing that you are 100% bound to come across are issues regarding the evening peak restriction.

So I would have assumed that anyone employed to enforce restrictions would know the rules on the restriction that they most likely to encounter, before they started demanding money.

Ah, the fare is cheaper in the opposite direction.

 

[Tomonthetrain]

Wouldn't they have the restriction codes on their Advantix?

 

[PTF62]

Wouldn't they have the restriction codes on their Advantix?

But the RPI 'knew' the rules despite the passenger knowing that they were wrong, telling them they were wrong and asking them to read the timetable to see that the passenger was right.

Surely if you don't know what a restriction code means, then you check it *before* asking the customer for money.

 

[jon0844]

As far as I am aware, FCC RPIs only work on their allocated line, so they only need to remember one lot of evening restrictions.

It did change not long after it was introduced but that was years ago, namely removing some stations from the restriction. Surely all RPIs can remember, or would check.

Of course, I know that some feel they know everything and can never be wrong, even though they consistently are!

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Maybe someone should run a tally to see which TOC has the most negative posts on here. FCC currently seem to be head & shoulders above the rest.

 

[PTF62]

Of course, I know that some feel they know everything and can never be wrong, even though they consistently are!

The only reason why someone can be consistently wrong is lack of management supervision.

If you cannot 'appeal' an excess fare only write to FCC, then it would appear obvious to me that if FCC are made aware that an incorrect excess fare has been issued due to a misunderstanding/misapplication of the evening peak rules, then you examine a sample of the excess fares issued by that RPI to see if it is a one off error or a bigger problem.

 

[stut]

...and don't even get started on the different peak times for off-peak day vs off-peak returns on the GN route. It's even colour-coded on the timetables.

 

[PTF62]

...and don't even get started on the different peak times for off-peak day vs off-peak returns on the GN route. It's even colour-coded on the timetables.

The timetable that the RPI didn't want to read...

 

[jon0844]

I brought up on the recent FCC online forum the Potters Bar announcement in the morning peak, that warned that people with off-peak tickets may be liable to a penalty fare if boarding the 0930 to King's Cross. FCC said that was wrong and agreed it would be an excess.

That announcement has been made probably every single day for years! You do have to wonder if some staff members aren't even given the right information in the first place. Also, will they change the announcement wording?

@MutantLemming, I would say that this forum perhaps has a lot more people who work for/use FCC and so it does get mentioned more than others.

The timetable that the RPI didn't want to read...

With the problems I had with the same FCC RPI, who homed in on me every time he saw me, I think his ego meant he could NEVER admit he was wrong. In these cases, people can sometimes dig themselves an even bigger hole in the vain hope that you'll concede and they win 'by default'.

 

[PTF62]

If a passenger is holding a valid ticket (as in this case), but refuses to pay an excess fare, which as it cannot be appealed is therefore an unconditional demand, can the RPI demand their name and address (after all they have a valid ticket, which they have presented for inspection).

i.e. can an RPI demand the name and address of any passenger, not just those without a valid ticket?

I am not sure that they can (but am happy to be corrected).

 

[yorkie]

Last week a friend (yes, really) caught an FCC train out of Kings Cross to Knebworth, using the return portion of an Off Peak Day Return (Knebworth to London). It was the weekday 17:14 Kings Cross to Peterborough, second stop Knebworth.

That appears to be restriction Y4, the return portion is valid on any train.

The RPI who came round inspecting tickets insisted the my friends ticket was not valid as "you can't use an Off Peak ticket at 5pm", and "it doesn't make any difference that the ticket is only to Knebworth". Although my friend refered the RPI to the timetable where the restrictions are set out, the RPI apparently was unable and/or unwilling to read the timetable, and insisted that my friend pay an excess to upgrade the ticket to a Peak Day Return.

I would ask what the validity code is.

If you know you are correct in a situation like this, while you can't "request" a UPFN as such, but there is no obligation to have the cash on you for an excess that you have no reason for believing you may need. So "I'm sorry but I am not in a position to pay that excess now, what is the procedure?" should see a UPFN issued. This could then be appealed.

Now my friend knows the evening peak rules (and wisely IMO) simply paid the excess and will appeal it.

But that cannot be appealed. It can, however, be refunded but the onus is now on the customer to persue FCC for the money (rather than the other way round).

I would write a letter of complaint outlining the facts and requesting a full refund of the excess fare issued, some compensation for having time wasted and also assurances that staff will be correctly trained in future.

What I cannot understand is that this must be one of the simplest matters that an FCC RPI can come across, and they couldn't get it right.

Indeed. Make sure you put in a complaint, state the name of the RPI if you got it, if not then they may be able to figure it out.

I have alerted an FCC senior manager to this thread but it's important that you write in and politely ask for your money back. No need for any waffle, just stick to the facts and you should get it back.

 

[nedchester]

If a passenger is holding a valid ticket (as in this case), but refuses to pay an excess fare, which as it cannot be appealed is therefore an unconditional demand, can the RPI demand their name and address (after all they have a valid ticket, which they have presented for inspection).

i.e. can an RPI demand the name and address of any passenger, not just those without a valid ticket?

I am not sure that they can (but am happy to be corrected).

I think that if they 'suspect' some irregularity has occurred they can demand the name and address. However, in this case I suspect it would be very unlikely that refusing to give your name and address to the RPI (who was wrong) would ever get near a court?

 

[PTF62]

For £4 my friend (and honestly it is a friend) could not be bothered to argue with someone who didn't want to listen.

As regards the RPI who issued the excess fare, never having received one, but wouldn't it be traceable to the person that issued it (and if not shouldn't it be)?

I would write a letter of complaint outlining the facts and requesting a full refund of the excess fare issued, some compensation for having time wasted and also assurances that staff will be correctly trained in future.

Exactly what I advised.

 

[yorkie]

If a passenger is holding a valid ticket (as in this case), but refuses to pay an excess fare, which as it cannot be appealed is therefore an unconditional demand, can the RPI demand their name and address (after all they have a valid ticket, which they have presented for inspection).

i.e. can an RPI demand the name and address of any passenger, not just those without a valid ticket?

I am not sure that they can (but am happy to be corrected).

Sadly, yes, if they reasonably suspect the customer does not have a valid ticket. Of course, it would come out later on that there was not such reasonable suspicion so I am unsure what the outcome may be.

A better solution would not be to 'refuse to pay' the excess fare, but to agree to pay it later (UPFN). However each company has different policies on UPFNs. East Coast generally will offer a UPFN by default (after all, who can be expected to pay a fare of potentially £100 or £200 on the spot?!) but with local TOCs they may expect you to pay there and then. It is unwise to specifically ask for a UPFN by name as some staff may wonder why you are aware of them (that happened to a member of this forum on EMT), so stating along the lines that you are prepared to pay the fare, but were not expecting to pay it as you firmly believe your ticket is valid, but that you will need to be given time to pay it, should result in a UPFN which can then be appealed (and costs the RPI time to issue, and more faffing about for the TOC). The onus is then on the TOC to get the fare from you, and clearly no fare is payable.

 

[PTF62]

Sadly, yes, if they reasonably suspect the customer does not have a valid ticket. Of course, it would come out later on that there was not such reasonable suspicion so I am unsure what the outcome may be.

I suppose the issue is the word "reasonable", and I would think that it would be fairly clear that an RPI that has failed to check the restrictions on a ticket would not have reasonable suspicions that the customer does not have a vald ticket.

But trying to argue that when the BTP have been called is probably going to end in tears.

 

[Greenback]

I would ask for a refund plus a £10 admin fee.

I would happily supply my name and address to any member of railway staff that requested it. I think that is quite reasonable if you state that you don't believe that your ticket is invalid and are not in a position to pay an excess as you were not expecting to have to.

 

[bb21]

That appears to be restriction Y4, the return portion is valid on any train.

I agree that the restriction code is Y4. The restriction for this flow in the opposite direction is B1.

I have edited the part in Post 2 where the incorrect restriction text was quoted.

 

[RJ]

As far as I am aware, FCC RPIs only work on their allocated line, so they only need to remember one lot of evening restrictions

To be fair, it's not that straightforward - I say that having worked in customer service/revenue protection at a busy London location with all sorts of tickets being presented. Only a numpty would believe that they know everything - even I had to check on The Manual every now and again. No one can be expected to remember them all off the top of their head and I don't think anyone on here can claim to either.

I think that if they 'suspect' some irregularity has occurred they can demand the name and address. However, in this case I suspect it would be very unlikely that refusing to give your name and address to the RPI (who was wrong) would ever get near a court?

Think you need to have a read of the Railway Byelaws, particularly clause 23. Whether or not the RPI was wrong is neither here nor there - allowance is made for genuine errors made by staff and the aggreived are normally compensated. Will leave you to conduct your own research on the potential consequences of breaching a byelaw!

 

[bb21]

To be fair, it's not that straightforward - I say that having worked in customer service/revenue protection at a busy London location with all sorts of tickets being presented. No one can be expected to remember them all off the top of their head.

I don't think anyone has any issue with an RPI not remembering all the different restrictions. It is not an easy job. However what is not acceptable is charging a passenger even though the RPI is not sure about the actual restriction. Unfortunately if one is unsure, the correct course of action would either have to be letting the passenger have the benefit of the doubt or actually looking it up.

 

[RJ]

I don't think anyone has any issue with an RPI not remembering all the different restrictions. It is not an easy job. However what is not acceptable is charging a passenger even though the RPI is not sure about the actual restriction. Unfortunately if one is unsure, the correct course of action would either have to be letting the passenger have the benefit of the doubt or actually looking it up.

Given that we have people roaming the length and bredth of the UK on dubious ticketing arrangements, I don't think that RPIs can be blamed for not giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Allegedly, there are people who are quite seasoned in what is technically criminal fare evasion through bluffing/blagging/trickery - who then become vociferous about RPIs who make errors! Surely if RPIs really did scruntinise every individual thoroughly, there would be quite a few more people around with criminal records stacked up. IMO, if an RPI makes a genuine mistake then the TOCs will normally compensate, given the chance. I really don't see the point in kicking up a big stink about it - especially if the TOC hasn't been given the chance to put it right. Unless of course, you believe that the RPI acknowledged that he was not acting correctly, but decided to persist anyway. By all means, that's a genuine reason to complain.

 

[bb21]

Given that we have people roaming the length and bredth of the UK on dubious ticketing arrangements, I don't think that RPIs can be blamed for not giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Allegedly, there are people who are quite seasoned in what is technically criminal fare evasion through bluffing/blagging/trickery - who then become vociferous about RPIs who make errors! Surely if RPIs really did scruntinise every individual thoroughly, there would be quite a few more people around with criminal records stacked up. IMO, if an RPI makes a genuine mistake then the TOCs will normally compensate, given the chance. I really don't see the point in kicking up a big stink about it - especially if the TOC hasn't been given the chance to put it right. Unless of course, you believe that the RPI acknowledged that he was not acting correctly, but decided to persist anyway. By all means, that's a genuine reason to complain.

Personally I would request a refund and the assurance that the member of staff in question is briefed about it so that similar incidents do not happen again and that should be sufficient, provided that there was not a dramatic scene at the time. If doing so ends up becoming the sole reason which results in serious disciplinary actions for the member of staff concerned, then the fault lies firmly with the management team that took such a draconian measure than with the passenger who simply wanted a fair answer.

Just like the fact that some staff have views about certain groups of passengers, rightly or wrongly, FCC RPIs have earned themselves a (not so good) reputation on this forum. This probably highlights a more systematic problem within FCC itself rather than with any individual RPI's competency. All the general travelling public want is for people in such important roles to be fair, which unfortunately did not appear to be the case in the incident described by the OP. Like you say, even the most knowledgeable RPI can make mistakes and provided that it is not a recurring issue, I don't think kicking up a big fuss is really necessary.

However from what the OP has described, it is the attitude of the RPI that many posters are unhappy about. There is no need to give the passenger the benefit of the doubt if an RPI so wishes, but if he/she is going to charge the passenger additional money and/or allege that what the passenger did was incorrect, he/she needs to make sure that he/she is absolutely sure about the facts in the first place. The fact that the RPI "apparently was unable and/or unwilling to read the timetable" is what I find most unprofessional.

 

[Bedpan]

Maybe someone should run a tally to see which TOC has the most negative posts on here. FCC currently seem to be head & shoulders above the rest.

I was a bit shocked to read this thread to be honest....as I have learnt that you can go all the way to Knebworth on an off peak ticket on the Great Northern line but only to Radlett (why Radlett?) on the Thameslink route.

The evening peak restrictions introduced by She Who Shall Not Be Named were one of a number of reasons that I stopped using them for over a year, because I felt that they were out to extract every last penny by fair means or foul: travel was transformed dramatically for me during her tenure and unfortunately her legacy still remains. I know they blamed overcrowding for being the first TOC (I think) to introduce evening peak restrictions but when they took over the franchise they were offered some 377s to increase capacity which they turned down. I later heard that the reason for this was that there was a gauging problem in the central London tunnels, which have presumably been enlarged subsequently by means of a magic spell.

I have been to West Hampstead today and wanted to come back in the evening peak. Its a £9 difference between an anytime and off peak return fare from Harpenden to West Hampstead Thameslink, not a mere £4 as per Kings Cross to Knebworth.

So I ended up having to travel from Harpenden to Cricklewood (last station in Zone C), going therough the barrier, touching in with an Oyster card, going back to the platform, waiting 15 minutes, and then catching the next train to West Hampstead. (Same thing happens when I go to Central London - I'm forced to take a long journey on two slow trains in the middle of the day if I want to return in the evening peak, on a slow train, for an acceptable extra fare).

Then a repeat on the way back, except that after I'd been to Cricklewood to touch out my Oyster card, the next train was only going to St Albans so I had to change there too.

Needless to say the trains home in the peak were still only 75% full at the most, so plenty of seats to choose from. (But more crowded than the slow trains leaving St Pancras between 16.30 and 17.00 which are only ever around half full).

Sorry to have a rant, but this is just one example (aside from issues with RPIs) of why they are so unpopular.

My Journey, My Choice, My Railway.........My A**e!!!

 

[Greenback]

However from what the OP has described, it is the attitude of the RPI that many posters are unhappy about. There is no need to give the passenger the benefit of the doubt if an RPI so wishes, but if he/she is going to charge the passenger additional money and/or allege that what the passenger did was incorrect, he/she needs to make sure that he/she is absolutely sure about the facts in the first place. The fact that the RPI "apparently was unable and/or unwilling to read the timetable" is what I find most unprofessional.

The trouble is that some staff are absolutely certain they are correct. They don't see any possibility that they may have misunderstood something, forgotten something, or that what their mate told them in the mess may not be right. Add in that company briefings may not be effective, and that the company may not provide the correct tools for the employee to do their job effectively, and you cna see why this sort of thing happens.

It seems from the posts about FCC RPI's that there may be a systemic problem, either with the training that this group of staff recieves, or in the supervision. Or probably both. As you say, there is no need to give the passenger the benefit of the doubt, but just to be more willing to ensure that the information the RPI is basing their decision on is actually correct. That is the professional approach.

 

[MichaelAMW]

It is absolutely clear to me that there was no *reasonable* cause to demand name and address on grounds of suspecting this person had an inappropriate ticket, as there was a clear opportunity to check the matter of the disagreement: the current timetable with the restrictions was available at the time of the conversation. It's sheer arrogance to refuse to take a moment to check.

In a similar, but not identical, situation I refused to pay an excess fare to MML when in the 'rush hour' a particular RPI refused to check the restriction on a cross-London saver that was unrestricted on the leg into St Pancras. As I was subsequently detained by the police for some time, I received a full refund in the end and a three-figure cheque as compensation. I mention this as it annoys me that the mere fact of being correct is not always much of a defence... but that persistence can pay off in the end.

 

[Aictos]

I know they blamed overcrowding for being the first TOC (I think) to introduce evening peak restrictions but when they took over the franchise they were offered some 377s to increase capacity which they turned down. I later heard that the reason for this was that there was a gauging problem in the central London tunnels, which have presumably been enlarged subsequently by means of a magic spell.

In a ideal world, the 12 317s would have gone to Ilford in 2006 with no need of the ex Silverlink/London Midland 321s to be able to run 12 car services on the GN as enough 377s would have been ordered for both routes with a 378 type replacing the 313s however I believe the reason this option was not taken up was not because of gauging issues but rather because of the eventual introduction of the NXEMUs.