Forgetting to carry a Railcard - how do you think passengers should be treated?

[cringer123]

Mods' note: this thread has been split from Unpaid Fare Notice for Anytime fare due to not carrying Railcard

I was rushing to leave, didn't check my documents and forgot my f&f railcard. Got presented with huge bill, got upset in front of my kids. I haven't been asked to show it before and the only time I don't have it I was asked to show it. I presented it when I bought the tickets at the tickets office....

 

[Geronimo]

So, the OP forgot their F&F railcard (worth 30£), and the _right thing_ is to charge them 249£? Really? (factor 8 here!!!). Heck, many fare evaders end up with 80£!
Such mindlessly harsh treatment is bound to generate some ill will in the OP's circle and might well lead to lost revenue through choosing different forms of travel.
Big picture?

 

[Tetchytyke]

So, the OP forgot their F&F railcard (worth 30£), and the _right thing_ is to charge them 249£? Really? (factor 8 here!!!). Heck, many fare evaders end up with 80£!

I think that is the issue.

I still do not see why the tickets you hold cannot be part-exchanged for the tickets you need. This is the same with advance tickets as well tickets with a railcard discount. If the TOCs want a deterrent then they could always have a higher administration fee, maybe £30 or £40 instead of £10, if you change tickets on board having walked past a ticket office.

 

[GadgetMan]

So, the OP forgot their F&F railcard (worth 30£), and the _right thing_ is to charge them 249£? Really? (factor 8 here!!!). Heck, many fare evaders end up with 80£!
Such mindlessly harsh treatment is bound to generate some ill will in the OP's circle and might well lead to lost revenue through choosing different forms of travel.
Big picture?

Or it might send a message to the same circle of friends that it is extremely important to ensure they have ALL travel documents with them before leaving home, otherwise it will cost them £xxx.

That's not to say I'd have done the same if I was in the Guard's position.

I worked a train a couple of years ago. 2 Passengers boarded my train at 9 am on a Saturday making a journey of approx 220 miles. They had cheap Advance tickets that they collected before departure. Being in a rush they left the Reservation coupons in the TVM.

When I walked through checking tickets they presented Two Advance singles for the journey but the reservation coupon missing. I asked them to produce the reservation and got the response 'that's all the machine gave us'. Noting the print time was a minute before departure time I politely suggested that they probably didn't wait long enough for the printer to finish and that their tickets were technically invalid. However being quite reasonable I said I would ring and check they were on the correct train to avoid them being charged for another ticket.

Immediately they started giving me abuse about how it wasn't their fault and that they would not be paying another penny, I was a jobsworth etc. 1 of the women snatched the tickets out my hand scratching my skin in the process. Just incase they'd misunderstood I pointed out again that aslong as they were on the correct train I would not charge them up. Unfortunately for them the attitude continued and any goodwill I had went out the window. So with assistance of an off duty BTP officer sat nearby, they were issued with UFN at £145 each (which they obviously said they weren't going to pay, but that's between them and IRCAS).

I did ring the staff ticket hotline later out of curiosity and they were indeed on their booked train.

Now without knowing all the details and witnessing their behaviour I'm sure a lot of people would think I (the Guard) had been very unreasonable. Some may even continue to think it was petty issuing UFNs when they were on the correct train with a missing reservation coupon.

Was I proud of what I did? NO.

However it became a sort of 'teach them a lesson' and 'I'm not doing them any favours' exercise due to their behaviour.

 

[bb21]

Was I proud of what I did? NO.

But you did nothing wrong.

Serves them right I would say.

 

[GadgetMan]

But you did nothing wrong.

Serves them right I would say.

According to the rules that's correct, but morally it's a painful punishment to have to hand out over a small oversight by the passenger. Which is why it is usually (not always) the passengers attitude that dictates the outcome.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Which is why it is usually (not always) the passengers attitude that dictates the outcome.

I think that's entirely reasonable. It is discretionary and you don't get discretion by being obnoxious. The OP said "I got upset in front of my kids" and I did wonder whether that really means "I was a **** to the guard". It usually does.

There are, however, two or three guards on EC who seem to take great delight in charging people hundreds of pounds for these types of mistake, even where the people are polite and courteous. I've seen them.

 

[yorkie]

So, the OP forgot their F&F railcard (worth 30£), and the _right thing_ is to charge them 249£? Really? (factor 8 here!!!). Heck, many fare evaders end up with 80£!
Such mindlessly harsh treatment is bound to generate some ill will in the OP's circle and might well lead to lost revenue through choosing different forms of travel.
Big picture?

Several Companies agree with you and their policy would not be to charge £250 in the circumstances described. Helpful staff based near me have informed me that TOCs in my area do indeed have a policy that £250 would not be charged in the circumstances described.

Some Companies do have a policy of charging the maximum possible amount though.

Sadly the OP has not provided full information, so I am having to assume that the OP used an off peak service, and also assume that the seats were not required by other fare-paying passengers, and also that there were no other circumstances which may yet come to light. I've offered to proof read the letter, but I've not had a letter to proof read. Therefore it does make me suspicious that there's more to this. But, if there is, then the OP is just wasting their time by not declaring that to us and not, therefore, getting the appropriate advice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Now without knowing all the details and witnessing their behaviour I'm sure a lot of people would think I (the Guard) had been very unreasonable. Some may even continue to think it was petty issuing UFNs when they were on the correct train with a missing reservation coupon.

Was I proud of what I did? NO.
.

Perhaps you should be proud because as far as I'm concerned you did everything right! You were prepared to show discretion, which is good, and the passengers behaved in a way that meant discretion was no longer justified.

As you know, people do sometimes lie to get advice, but then the advice they get is wrong! We can only give accurate advice based on what people say and if there's stuff they aren't telling us, they are the ones who will lose out when it comes to light.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are, however, two or three guards on EC who seem to take great delight in charging people hundreds of pounds for these types of mistake, even where the people are polite and courteous. I've seen them.

Oh yes, and don't we just know who some of them are! But they are, without doubt, in the minority.

 

[plastictaffy]

In practice, many Guards will show discretion (and some Train Companies specify this) either by selling Off Peak fares (where appropriate) and/or an excess from the discounted, to undiscounted rate.

Nope - tickets that were bought with discount without actually having the Railcard should not be excessed up to full fare. A new ticket should be bought. That's the line from my Conductor Manager. They are the only tickets that we're not supposed to excess up. That doesn't mean that they don't get excessed up, just that we're not supposed to.
There's more than one Guard at my depot that would insist a new ticket was bought, and would have absolutely no qualms about chucking them off at the next stop if this was not done. Personally, I see it as discretion being the better part of valour, and I will excess them up. But I'm far too soft!!!

 

[LowLevel]

I think that's entirely reasonable. It is discretionary and you don't get discretion by being obnoxious. The OP said "I got upset in front of my kids" and I did wonder whether that really means "I was a **** to the guard". It usually does.

There are, however, two or three guards on EC who seem to take great delight in charging people hundreds of pounds for these types of mistake, even where the people are polite and courteous. I've seen them.

Sometimes they will - humanity breeds all sorts. Discretion is discretionary.

Personally I use my discretion to the absolute max (more than I should in fact - but it's not my money and the company has made it clear it values 'customer service') but if you're rude or upset me personally then I will do you to within an inch of your life, including every penny of a UPFN up to and including, if you cross the 'abuse' line, having you dragged off a train by the police.

 

[yorkie]

Nope - tickets that were bought with discount without actually having the Railcard should not be excessed up to full fare. A new ticket should be bought. That's the line from my Conductor Manager. They are the only tickets that we're not supposed to excess up. That doesn't mean that they don't get excessed up, just that we're not supposed to.

But who is "we"? I have never claimed this is the policy of all Train Companies.

You say "nope" to what I said, but what I said is correct: it is the policy of some Train Companies not to charge full fare tickets to people in the circumstances described. I've witnessed incidents myself (and the Guard has had a tough enough job getting an excess into 3-figures for passengers doing e.g. London - Berwick, let alone increasing that figure by a factor of about 4!) and been informed of this by Guards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unfortunately, the OP hasn't been responded to questions about the age of the children, so I don't think there is any point in assuming that they were actually under 5 years of age. We know from other threads of parents who feel that there adult fare paying offspring are still children, so we should be careful about interpreting the meaning of "young children".

It was more the fact they had been bought tickets "so they had a seat" which is indicating they're under 5.

If people are not honest on here, then they will not be given the appropriate advice for their actual situation, and will just make things worse for themselves.

 

[LowLevel]

The policy in KnowledgeBase is that a new ticket should be bought, however individual TOCs and revenue staff (including guards) can use discretion on this. I recently discovered Knowledge Base is accessible on my work phone, which is useful!

 

[yorkie]

... I recently discovered Knowledge Base is accessible on my work phone, which is useful!

I understand it became available for everyone (according to this post) briefly, and I also hear it has subsequently been 'mirrored' on other websites.

 

[Suraggu]

The policy in KnowledgeBase is that a new ticket should be bought, however individual TOCs and revenue staff (including guards) can use discretion on this. I recently discovered Knowledge Base is accessible on my work phone, which is useful!

The problem with discretion is that every passenger who has an invalid ticket has this in the back of the mind because of the high level of customer service that is expected. Then you have the companies Customer service vs Revenue protection and customer service generally prevails.

Also it seems the railway gets the brunt of issues with tickets, if you get on a bus with an invalid or no ticket the driver wont move until you pay, the airplane will still leave if you have not got a valid ticket.
Buying tickets mean you entered a contract with the train operating company. If the TOC fails on their end of the contract, refunds and alternative travel are given. If the Customer fails to live up to their part of the contract then they should be penalised.

It baffles me how many people leave tickets on trains regardless of announcements, think a booking confirmation is a ticket, phone battery dies with ticket on the phone, purchasing advance tickets and getting off two stops before because that was their ultimate destination. Unfortunately if the customers fails on their part of that contract then they only have themselves to blame.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the Customer fails to live up to their part of the contract then they should be penalised.

Why should a customer be penalised for a mistake, such as not taking their railcard with them?

There is no reason why a passenger shouldn't be given credit for the value of the ticket(s) they hold, subject to a reasonable administration fee. Anything else is pure greed, which is sadly something I have come to fully expect from London Midland (in response to PlasticTaffy).

TOCs are not penalised when they screw up, and I don't see why passengers should be penalised for mistakes.

 

[Suraggu]

Why should a customer be penalised for a mistake, such as not taking their railcard with them?

There is no reason why a passenger shouldn't be given credit for the value of the ticket(s) they hold, subject to a reasonable administration fee. Anything else is pure greed, which is sadly something I have come to fully expect from London Midland (in response to PlasticTaffy).

TOCs are not penalised when they screw up, and I don't see why passengers should be penalised for mistakes.

The use of the railcard is then part of that contract. If the customer forgets it the contract is invalid.

 

[LowLevel]

Why should a customer be penalised for a mistake, such as not taking their railcard with them?

There is no reason why a passenger shouldn't be given credit for the value of the ticket(s) they hold, subject to a reasonable administration fee. Anything else is pure greed, which is sadly something I have come to fully expect from London Midland (in response to PlasticTaffy).

TOCs are not penalised when they screw up, and I don't see why passengers should be penalised for mistakes.

Because why should the TOC do this every time for absent minded customers, at it's own time and expense?

As it happens, EMT will refund the replacement tickets bought if you complete a form from customer relations and take it to the booking office for stamping with the forgotten card - once.

If you forget it again they won't accept the cost of the time to do the refund and you have to suck up the loss until you learn to remember it.

TOCs are penalised if they screw up, they pay compensation and delay minutes so not sure where you're coming from!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Why should a customer be penalised for a mistake, such as not taking their railcard with them?

There is no reason why a passenger shouldn't be given credit for the value of the ticket(s) they hold, subject to a reasonable administration fee. Anything else is pure greed, which is sadly something I have come to fully expect from London Midland (in response to PlasticTaffy).

TOCs are not penalised when they screw up, and I don't see why passengers should be penalised for mistakes.

You didn't think very hard before posting this, did you?

Take out the rhetoric such as 'penalised', 'greed', 'reasonable', 'given credit for', 'I . . .expect from London Midland', and just apply some logic to what is left. Please.

How does an operator validate the discounted tickets presented if not by the presence of the necessary discount Railcard?

How does an inspector differentiate a failure to present the necesary discount Railcard through 'mistake' from the failure to produce the necesary discount Railcard through intention to pay the difference only when detected?

How does any operator ensure that the appropriate fares are paid where discounts on specific tickets are tied to a specific Railcard?

What special circumstances differentiate a failure to produce a ticket for travel on London Midland services from an ability to produce a discounted ticket for travel on a London Midland service but not the ability to produce the related discount Railcard?

I won't ask about 'penalised', 'greed', 'reasonable', 'given credit for', 'I . . . expect from London Midland', and I don't expect that your answers will be of any assistance to cringer123, who is very clearly asking for assistance.

 

[Flamingo]

One thing I do find amusing is the number of passengers (and posters on this forum) who demand and expect maximum possible flexibility and discretion on the part of TOC's and their employees, yet at the same time expect any error, mistake or discrepancy by those same TOC's and employees to be dealt with in the most draconian manner possible.

Yum yum, nice cake...

 

[Geronimo]

How does an inspector differentiate a failure to present the necesary discount Railcard through 'mistake' from the failure to produce the necesary discount Railcard through intention to pay the difference only when detected?

By using basic logic?

Q1/ Do the passenger(s) appear to fulfill the condition for the railcard?
Q2/ What would have been the saving to the passenger fraudulently obtaining discounted tickets?

A1/ in the OP's case yes
A2/ in this case £30, the cost of the RC.

The balance of probability is that the passenger forgot his railcard. (Might not be true, but it's the most likely, by quite a lot, a risk of 250£ to save 30£ would be peculiar).

It probably is rarely as clear cut as in this case (assuming reliable information, etc...), and it often wouldn't give anything useful, but here?

 

[Deerfold]

By using basic logic?

Q1/ Do the passenger(s) appear to fulfill the condition for the railcard?
Q2/ What would have been the saving to the passenger fraudulently obtaining discounted tickets?

A1/ in the OP's case yes
A2/ in this case £30, the cost of the RC.

The balance of probability is that the passenger forgot his railcard. (Might not be true, but it's the most likely, by quite a lot, a risk of 250£ to save 30£ would be peculiar).

It probably is rarely as clear cut as in this case (assuming reliable information, etc...), and it often wouldn't give anything useful, but here?

How do you determine your probabilities (which you seem to be using rather than logic) to work this out?

 

[Tetchytyke]

What special circumstances differentiate a failure to produce a ticket for travel on London Midland services from an ability to produce a discounted ticket for travel on a London Midland service but not the ability to produce the related discount Railcard?

There is a significant difference between someone paying 0% of the full adult fare and 66% of the full adult fare. That should be taken into account.

I have no issue with TOCs insisting that the full adult fare be paid. I would even have no issue with TOCs charging an enhanced "on train administration fee", maybe £20 per change, given that it is more hassle to change tickets on board (and this would obviously act as a deterrent). What I do have an issue with is the attitude that a forgotten railcard means the tickets already held are worthless, and that you should have to fork out for the obscenely-priced "anytime" fare.

Not giving a passenger the credit for the tickets they do hold is clearly about maximising income. Greed, in other words.

There is a possibility that some passengers "forget" their railcards, just as some TOCs "forget" to open their ticket office when they're supposed to (hello London Midland). Such is life.

One thing I do find amusing is the number of passengers (and posters on this forum) who demand and expect maximum possible flexibility and discretion on the part of TOC's and their employees, yet at the same time expect any error, mistake or discrepancy by those same TOC's and employees to be dealt with in the most draconian manner possible.

Who says this? Examples please.

TOCs are penalised if they screw up, they pay compensation and delay minutes so not sure where you're coming from!

The Telegraph did some research a year or two ago which showed the TOCs made a combined profit of over £150m from delays.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9570700/Train-operators-cash-in-on-delays.html

But to go back to the OP. One, write to EC Customer Services with the tickets and appeal to their better nature. Two, pay the UPFN. Three, remember that your Railcard is as valuable as your passport when you travel in future.

 

[talldave]

....But to go back to the OP. One, write to EC Customer Services with the tickets and appeal to their better nature. Two, pay the UPFN. Three, remember that your Railcard is as valuable as your passport when you travel in future.

Apologies is this is going way off topic, but does anyone know if the ITSO spec for smartcard tickets supports the "loading" of any kind of a railcard entitlement? It would seem logical to be able to combine all the pieces of paper onto the smartcard? And would eradicate the "forgotten/lost railcard" problem in the smartcard age.

 

[yorkie]

....If the Customer fails to live up to their part of the contract then they should be penalised.....

No-one is denying that, but the level to which they are penalised varies by Train Company. In this case, East Coast's policies are not to penalise to the tune of £250 in the circumstances described (assuming what the OP has told us is correct, which of course it might not be, but we can only go by that!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

TOCs are not penalised when they screw up, and I don't see why passengers should be penalised for mistakes.

Passengers are penalised for mistakes, the extent to which varies by Train Company. A mistake is penalised by the issuing of a Penalty Fare in certain circumstances, if using a Penalty Fare train from a Penalty Fare station.

In this particular case, given the Train Company used and the journey made, it's the level of penalisation which is surprising, rather than the fact they have been penalised.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As it happens, EMT will refund the replacement tickets bought if you complete a form from customer relations and take it to the booking office for stamping with the forgotten card - once.

If you forget it again they won't accept the cost of the time to do the refund and you have to suck up the loss until you learn to remember it.

That's reasonable.

XC do something similar, though I'm told it's the cost of the original tickets which are refunded.

Does anyone have a definitive list of each TOC's policy?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

How does an operator validate the discounted tickets presented if not by the presence of the necessary discount Railcard?

If you had a more intelligent ticketing system, you would validate at point of purchase
(a) that a valid rail card was held
(b) that it was valid for the proposed journey.

If the ticket is then printed with a message saying "Railcard validated for X", the Railcard need not be carried. You might have as an additional condition that if you didn't carry the Railcard, you needed something to identify yourself as X.

It could be a potential inconvenience, but ticket machines could refuse to issue discounted tickets unless the Railcard was inserted or swiped. That requires a machine readable card of course.

 

[yorkie]

If you had a more intelligent ticketing system, you would validate at point of purchase
(a) that a valid rail card was held
(b) that it was valid for the proposed journey.

How would third party websites verify this?

If the ticket is then printed with a message saying "Railcard validated for X", the Railcard need not be carried. You might have as an additional condition that if you didn't carry the Railcard, you needed something to identify yourself as X.

That sounds even more complicated, and how would you define proof of identity?

It could be a potential inconvenience, but ticket machines could refuse to issue discounted tickets unless the Railcard was inserted or swiped. That requires a machine readable card of course.

And greatly increased costs!

Many TOCs have quite sensible (though varying!) policies on this matter, and I believe they are, generally, adequate.

It's only because some TOCs are much stricter (e.g. charging a new Anytime fare with no allowance of the original, and no refunds if the passenger later provides proof of Railcard) that 'alternatives' are being discussed.

We've had this discussion many, many times, with all sorts of proposals, but hardly any of them are actually workable.

 

[Statto]

Why should a customer be penalised for a mistake, such as not taking their railcard with them?

There is no reason why a passenger shouldn't be given credit for the value of the ticket(s) they hold, subject to a reasonable administration fee. Anything else is pure greed, which is sadly something I have come to fully expect from London Midland (in response to PlasticTaffy).

TOCs are not penalised when they screw up, and I don't see why passengers should be penalised for mistakes.

Because the T&C of holding a Railcard is that you must produce your Railcard every time you travel on Railcard discounted tickets when asked to do so, failure to do so the Railcard discounted ticket is invalid & the passenger has to purchase a new ticket[think it's an anytime ticket] otherwise some passengers would be purchasing tickets with Railcard discount when they know they don't hold a Railcard hoping they don't get caught.

 

[Flamingo]

Of course, if railcards were abolished, and all fares knocked down by a percentage that would make it revenue-neutral for the TOC's, that would solve the problems...

 

[MarlowDonkey]

How would third party websites verify this?

If you are selling tickets, you are given access to a database containing Railcard details. Any number of validation methods are then possible.

If you want validation during a journey, the method used to validate ticket collection is possible, namely possession of the credit or debit card used to purchase the tickets, or more simply just any credit or debit card in the name of the ticket holder.

How long have discounted tickets been available? Network cards would presumably date from the introduction of Network South East in the 1980s, but did Senior Railcards date from before that? The point is that the Rules relating to such cards seem to go back to the 1970s, when actual possession of the card was the only plausible way to validate that a ticket was valid. Other methods should now be possible.

 

[bb21]

If you had a more intelligent ticketing system, you would validate at point of purchase
(a) that a valid rail card was held

... which is not a requirement at the moment, only at point of use. Are you going to make it more difficult for passengers?