Guardian article: Passenger failed to show railcard, opinons?

[TrainfanBen]

Original link; https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/nov/13/lost-railcard-paid-more-ticket-no-refund?CMP=fb_gu

I've ommitted the Guardians response which basically talked about conditions of carriage and didn't refer to byewlaws.

We travelled off peak from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston in September, using two advance first-class tickets which cost £35.65 each with my disabled person’s railcard. But when the ticket inspector checked, I couldn’t find my railcard, though I had a photo of it on my mobile. She told me this wasn’t acceptable and I’d have to buy new tickets – for an extra £201.85 each.

I asked, instead, to get off the train, but was told this wasn’t possible and that I had to buy the new tickets. The inspector did mention that Virgin will sometimes reimburse the cost in such circumstances. On this basis I agreed to pay the additional fare.

I immediately went on the Virgin website to submit the claim, even asking the inspector to show me how to correctly fill in the complaint. As the train pulled into Euston I found my railcard in my bag – it must have been trapped in the lining. I tried to find the inspector, but couldn’t.

Since then I have been told by Virgin that my claim has been refused on the basis that, when asked, I didn’t show my railcard. I escalated my complaint to management, which merely confirmed the rejection.

I accept that rail firms have to make sure people don’t fraudulently travel on cheaper fares, but in this case I had a card that I could have shown at the journey’s end.

The price of the new ticket is totally disproportionate to the original cost. I have spent about £5,000 a year for the past five years travelling between London and Manchester and find the company’s response astounding. GC, London

Basically, the passenger concerned couldn't find their disabled railcard but was able to find it before the journey finished.

The passenger did themselves no favours by e-mailing afterwards, instead of going to the ticket office at Euston to prove they did have the railcard during the journey.

ADDED:
Any thoughts?

I don't see any grounds why Virgin would need to refund this, but I think charging a full fare for a legitimate pass holder is a bit unfair.

 

[AlterEgo]

Customer in the wrong, Virgin in the right.

That said, a bit sad they won't even offer vouchers as a gesture of goodwill, which certainly used to be the case a few years back.

 

[EM2]

Well, Virgin's response says:

'It is a rail industry standard that the customer is responsible for having their railcard with them … as this customer was found to be travelling without their railcard they were charged the full amount of a new ticket. '

Now, if I were the kind of person to be really awkward, I'd say to them that I did have my railcard with me, and I wasn't travelling without it.
I know that isn't what Virgin *meant* by that comment, but it is what they *said*

 

[DaleCooper]

I can't understand why they didn't keep their railcard and ticket together, I always put both in the wallet provided, neither do I understand why someone would have a photo of their railcard on their phone, that actually seems slightly suspicious.

 

[Phil.]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/nov/13/lost-railcard-paid-more-ticket-no-refund?CMP=fb_gu

Basically, the passenger concerned couldn't find their disabled railcard but was able to find it before the journey finished.

The passenger did themselves no favours by e-mailing afterwards, instead of going to the ticket office at Euston to prove they did have the railcard during the journey.

Why go to the ticket office? It's not the office that they've had problems with. The passenger has stated that they looked to find the inspector (Train Manager?) but couldn't find them so e-mailed Virgin direct. Poor show by Virgin who've done themselves no favours by treating someone like a Saturday night oik on the fiddle.

There will now follow a flurry of posts quoting conditions of issue, railway bye-laws etc.

 

[DaleCooper]

Poor show by Virgin who've done themselves no favours by treating someone like a Saturday night oik on the fiddle.[/I]

How can Virgin (or you, or I) know that this person wasn't on the fiddle.

"You use my railcard, I'll just show him a photo of it"

Sometimes apparently respectable people are on the fiddle. Remember that fare dodging barrister?

 

[AlterEgo]

How can Virgin (or you, or I) know that this person wasn't on the fiddle.

"You use my railcard, I'll just show him a photo of it"

Sometimes apparently respectable people are on the fiddle. Remember that fare dodging barrister?

Well, quite. The DSB railcard has no photograph. I think the condition it should be presented with the ticket is completely reasonable.

 

[najaB]

Customer in the wrong, Virgin in the right.

I accept that by the letter of the law they were in the wrong, however I'm not sure about the 'you can't get off the train' bit. I would have thought that charging a full fare ticket to the next station would have been an appropriate course of action.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

As with many cases, this is the clash between the immovable Rail Conditions of Carriage and the flexible world of customer service. The former would say - rules are rules, no railcard, not a valid ticket. The latter would immediately refund the payment.

As the railway companies have developed a customer service culture, I think a lot of people expect them to be all about customer service, while under BR days they would have accepted the law being enforced to the letter.

 

[Phil.]

How can Virgin (or you, or I) know that this person wasn't on the fiddle.

"You use my railcard, I'll just show him a photo of it"

Sometimes apparently respectable people are on the fiddle. Remember that fare dodging barrister?

Because the person concerned found their railcard afterwards. That should have triggered a refund from Virgin. This is another example that makes a case for at least charging the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid. The TOC has then received the full fare and lost nothing. Cancelling a ticket and making someone pay the full walk-on is having their cake and eating it.

 

[matt_world2004]

If the person had found the railcard and then boarded the train with their discounted ticket and the disabled persons railcard they are entitled to s refund on the second unused ticket minus any admin fee.

 

[DaleCooper]

Because the person concerned found their railcard afterwards.

How convenient. That proves nothing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because the person concerned found their railcard afterwards. That should have triggered a refund from Virgin. This is another example that makes a case for at least charging the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid. The TOC has then received the full fare and lost nothing. Cancelling a ticket and making someone pay the full walk-on is having their cake and eating it.

The problem with paying the difference is that it is an open invitation to try it on, because the worst that can happen if you are caught is that you pay what you would have paid anyway.

The problem is that it's disproportionate if you charge a new Anytime fare.

That's why my view is that ticketing irregularities should, provided actual fraud is not suspected, be dealt with with a fixed Penalty Fare in all instances plus the appropriate fare or fare difference. Perhaps around £40-£50 per person plus the difference in this case.

 

[Agent_c]

Whilst it would be very nice of Virgin to refund the money (and I wish that they did), the railcard rules are absolutely clear. If you don't show your railcard on demand along with the ticket, the ticket is invalid.

In this matter, the person was treated just like anyone else. I guess Equality is only desirable when it goes the "right way".

 

[najaB]

Whilst it would be very nice of Virgin to refund the money (and I wish that they did), the railcard rules are absolutely clear. If you don't show your railcard on demand along with the ticket, the ticket is invalid.

Agreed. However, I don't understand why they weren't charged the Antyime/Off-Peak single to the next station and allowed to alight there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. However, I don't understand why they weren't charged the Antyime/Off-Peak single to the next station and allowed to alight there.

Was there a next station stop before the destination?

Or was it more of:
Passenger: can we get off at the next stop, find it and get back on?
Guard: no, your Advances are not valid on any other train
P: Then there's nothing to be saved by getting off?
G: No
P: Then we will buy the tickets.

Or even they wanted to pay *nothing* and get off.

Or (given the involvement of a DSB) would they have required prebooked assistance to alight?

 

[najaB]

Was there a next station stop before the destination?

Don't know. I'm just going by their request to do so - I'm making the (naive) assumption that they wouldn't have asked if there wasn't a stop and would have mentioned the same in their letter.

 

[DaleCooper]

Agreed. However, I don't understand why they weren't charged the Antyime/Off-Peak single to the next station and allowed to alight there.

Perhaps because they probably wouldn't need the railcard to exit at Euston and the guard on a train with several hundred passengers could hardly be expected to ensure they alighted at the next station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps because they probably wouldn't need the railcard to exit at Euston and the guard on a train with several hundred passengers could hardly be expected to ensure they alighted at the next station.

That is potentially true, but it isn't within the Guard's right to prevent that even in the case of a ticketless passenger, which effectively they were. If a ticketless passenger is being sold an Anytime fare they are quite entitled for it to be to the next station stop, provided they do alight there.

What he could of course do is return after the next station stop and make a report for prosecution in the event that they had not alighted, as that would be an open-and-shut RoRA short-faring case.

 

[najaB]

Perhaps because they probably wouldn't need the railcard to exit at Euston and the guard on a train with several hundred passengers could hardly be expected to ensure they alighted at the next station.

I suppose. It's just I have seen examples posted here where that is exactly what was done.

 

[DaleCooper]

That is potentially true, but it isn't within the Guard's right to prevent that even in the case of a ticketless passenger, which effectively they were. If a ticketless passenger is being sold an Anytime fare they are quite entitled for it to be to the next station stop, provided they do alight there.

He didn't prevent them from getting off; I suspect it's just that he wasn't going to sell them tickets for that purpose. Of course if they had got off they would then need full price tickets to complete the journey so not really an advantage, or perhaps they hoped to get the first part of the journey at a discount and then pay for what might have been a fairly short journey.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is potentially true, but it isn't within the Guard's right to prevent that even in the case of a ticketless passenger, which effectively they were. If a ticketless passenger is being sold an Anytime fare they are quite entitled for it to be to the next station stop, provided they do alight there.

What he could of course do is return after the next station stop and make a report for prosecution in the event that they had not alighted, as that would be an open-and-shut RoRA short-faring case.

I don't think a TM can't make a report for prosecution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

He didn't prevent them from getting off; I suspect it's just that he wasn't going to sell them tickets for that purpose.

He certainly did not have the right to insist they purchased through tickets to Euston if they did intend on getting off.

I expect they wanted to get off without paying any fare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think a TM can't make a report for prosecution.

I can't see why they wouldn't be able to do so, even if it involved requesting an RPI team or BTP to be present at Euston to actually complete the paperwork.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I am the only one who suspects that if they were allowed off, the newspapers would be carrying a "disabled passenger 'kicked off' train when they could not find their railcard" story...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose. It's just I have seen examples posted here where that is exactly what was done.

Because, provided the passenger actually does alight there, if they are not being prosecuted they are quite entitled to take a ticket to there, provided they do indeed alight.

If I made a similar error and was not in a hurry, it would certainly be my request, so I could then alight and buy an off-peak walk-up to continue on a later train (or, if BoJ was permitted on my discounted ticket and it was a cheaper option, to purchase a new Railcard). I would certainly not be paying for a journey I did not intend on making, and if a guard insisted he would be left with the option of calling the BTP or reporting me for prosecution, the latter being unlikely even if technically possible. I have a feeling with most guards who would do take that approach that the outcome would have been not being charged anything on-train for that section of journey and said member of staff walking off.

 

[DaleCooper]

Let us not forget we have heard only one side of the story and that from someone who is seeking to recover £400.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can't see why they wouldn't be able to do so, even if it involved requesting an RPI team or BTP to be present at Euston to actually complete the paperwork.

They could request an RPI at Euston, that's about it. The limit of a TM's on-train revenue powers is to complete a UFN.

 

[221129]

They could request an RPI at Euston, that's about it. The limit of a TM's on-train revenue powers is to complete a UFN.

Or a TIR...

 

[AlterEgo]

Or a TIR...

You wouldn't complete a TIR in these circumstances. TIRs are generally for suspect tickets (fake, or perhaps a ticket issuing error), suspicions of fraudulent travel, abuse of staff travel facilities, and things like that.

The UFN is quite sufficient for a passenger with no railcard where there is nothing dishonest or warranting investigation.

A TIR is simply a report of something "weird", it isn't anything that in itself conveys any authority or binds the customer to pay a fare.

 

[Llanigraham]

The instructions provided with a Disabled Adult Rail Card (I have one!) are quite explicit; you must present it with your ticket when requested otherwise your ticket is not valid. When applying on line that instruction comes up more than once, and is stated on the letter that accompanies the card.
This person ignored those instructions and was therefore legitimately charged for a new ticket.
The fact that they found the card at the end of the journey is immaterial, other than proving they need to be more organised and to take some responsibility for their (incorrect) actions.