I do have a railcard..but I forgot it. Refund?

[dstrat]

Hi guys

Just wondering, I bought a ticket from a machine believing I had my railcard on me. By the time the guard had come round on the East Coast service to check tickets and what not, found I never had my railcard.

Fair game to the bloke, he gave me 20 mins or so to find it. Didn't have it so he excessed my ticket to the full off peak return (was early but on a weekend), which put me £40 out of pocket. I do actually have a rail card and can produce it, and the letter issuing me it (one of the natwest 16-25 student deals).

Worst thing is, didn't even need to do the journey...was a bit laggered from the heavy saturday night before and decided I'd go and sleep on the train to the north Getting off at York at 0830 and realising I am 4 hours away from my bed in the south was probably was the worst feeling I've ever had, heh.

Thanks all.

 

[wintonian]

Unfortunately not as it is deemed your responsibility to show a valid railcard on request.

 

[transportphoto]

I'm afraid your chances are next to none, when you received the railcard you accepted the terms and conditions of its use, one of those is to produce it on every ticket inspection with the discounted ticket.

Sorry,TP

 

[323235]

I think you will just have to write it off as one of those unfortunate occurances which happens to us all at some point. A ticket with Railcard discount is only valid if you have it to show when requested at the time of travel. You were actually very lucky really as I believe the Guard should have charged you for a brand new Anytime ticket but was in fact very generous and used discretion in allowing you to simply pay the Excess. I see this quite often.

 

[Mojo]

I am aware of a number of cases when someone has made this mistake and sent a letter to the customer relations office, who have offered a refund of the difference.

I most certainly wouldn't rate your chances as ''next to none'' but it depends a number of factors. My advice would be don't bet on it.

 

[yorkie]

I wouldn't write in. The guard showed discretion and excessed you to a Super Off Peak ticket, meaning that you paid the same fare that you should have been asked for at the ticket office. You are not entitled to anything.

If you had been charged for a brand new Anytime ticket (as per the rules) then I would say, yes, give it a go.

It is quite possible that the person receiving the letter will realise you have been treated very leniently, yet are still asking for money back (!!!) when actually you were undercharged (by perhaps £100!). I therefore suggest you do not write to East Coast!

BTW I don't understand your final paragraph.

 

[island]

Agree with prior posters; as you should have been charged for an anytime single you got off quite lightly.

 

[clagmonster]

I agree. If you had been sold a new ticket (it should be the full standard single/return) then you would be eligible for a refund on the unused, discounted ticket less a £10 admin fee but in this case you have been treated leniently and everything you have bought you have used (to use the excess, you must have used the original ticket).

 

[fulshaw]

I really do not see the harm in writing in. I know what the rules say and that you are supposed to have your Railcard with you, etc, etc. However, society is not just about rail rules and we don't all operate like a computer programme. That was demonstrated by the guard who, as other people here have pointed out, clearly sympathised and didn't charge you as much as he could have done.

If you don't ask in this life you don't get.

I know of several people who have written to councils, not known for their soft centredness, after being given parking notices and they have had the charge waived. Just explain that you understand the rules are there, that you understand and accept that they are deisgned to prevent fraud and you accept that and think it is right. Say how much you travel on EC and by train in general, that this is a first mistake and that could they consider waiving the charge on this occasion as the sum, though small, is a lot for a student?

The worst thing that could happen is they say no.

Customer service departments are usually so confused at someone being totally honest that it may just work in your favour. You are also empowering them to make a decision as a decent person - it is more of a direct personal plea than arguing with them about rule 39a, sub-section ii), chapter 5. Most people don't want to be seen as bad person so if you can write a letter to a named person, then even better. It's a bit of psychology and Game theory thrown together but I find it works.

 

[yorkie]

I really do not see the harm in writing in.

I do. He was undercharged! They could even tell the guard off for showing too much discretion.

I know what the rules say and that you are supposed to have your Railcard with you, etc, etc.

Yes and the rules were not rigidly applied; discretion was shown! He was in fact charged the appropriate fare as if there was no opportunity to buy before boarding. So what is there to refund? Nothing!

However, society is not just about rail rules and we don't all operate like a computer programme. That was demonstrated by the guard who, as other people here have pointed out, clearly sympathised and didn't charge you as much as he could have done.

I agree. The OP was very lucky. It's nice to hear that guards show discretion!

If you don't ask in this life you don't get.

Asking for something that is unreasonable is not something I am going to recommend. In fact, I will advise strongly against it.

I know of several people who have written to councils, not known for their soft centredness, after being given parking notices and they have had the charge waived.

But if the car park cost £5, and the "parking notice" is a penalty of, say, £50, and they only put £3 on the meter, and a parking attendant charged them the difference of £2, then it would be absurd to go complaining! No penalty has been applied!

Just explain that you understand the rules are there, that you understand and accept that they are deisgned to prevent fraud and you accept that and think it is right. Say how much you travel on EC and by train in general, that this is a first mistake and that could they consider waiving the charge on this occasion as the sum, though small, is a lot for a student?

I'm sorry but this does not make sense as he was not charged any more than he would have been had he realised his mistake before boarding and consulted the ticket office.

The worst thing that could happen is they say no.

Or they make a note that the customer is unreasonable and consider future requests accordingly?

Customer service departments are usually so confused at someone being totally honest that it may just work in your favour.

I find this very difficult to believe!

By the way I do know someone who was a team leader in the relevant department. They are not stupid.

You are also empowering them to make a decision as a decent person - it is more of a direct personal plea than arguing with them about rule 39a, sub-section ii), chapter 5? Most people don't want to be seen as bad person so if you can write a letter to a named person, then even better.

A decent person (the guard) made a good decision not to charge the customer any penalty whatsoever and merely excessed up to the appropriate fare. How anyone can request a refund of part of the correct fare, I cannot fathom!

 

[WestCoast]

I actually think it would great if TOCs could refund passengers in these circumstances, rather like a forgotten season ticket and so on.

After all, the passenger did own a railcard and that is proof of entitlement to the discount. They did not meet their contractual agreement by presenting the railcard with the tickets, but a goodwill gesture may be in order.

 

[Clip]

It would great if TOCs could refund passengers in these circumstances, rather like a forgotten season ticket and so on.

After all, the passenger did own a railcard. They did not meet their contractual agreement, but a goodwill gesture may be in order.

But as has been pointed out - the goodwill gesture was already made by the guard who showed his discretion and let the OP off without having to pay for a whole new ticket.

 

[WestCoast]

But as has been pointed out - the goodwill gesture was already made by the guard who showed his discretion and let the OP off without having to pay for a whole new ticket.

Yes, I realise that, but the rules seem harsh when a season ticket holder can be refunded when they have forgotten their ticket.

 

[Clip]

Yes, I realise that, but the rules seem harsh when a season ticket holder can be refunded when they have forgotten their ticket.

Only so many times. And their name and details are all held on the system and with a photocard. .With a railcard they are not, so who or what is to stop someone from borrowing a family members or friends just so they can get a refund?

You know the rules are there to stop abuse of the system which would explode if this sort of thing was allowed

 

[WestCoast]

Only so many times. And their name and details are all held on the system and with a photocard. .With a railcard they are not, so who or what is to stop someone from borrowing a family members or friends just so they can get a refund?

You know the rules are there to stop abuse of the system which would explode if this sort of thing was allowed

Looking ahead to the possible introduction of a National Railcard for all ages, I think it would be wise to use the season ticket system.

 

[yorkie]

I agree the rules are (not just seem; are!) harsh. But the rules were not applied, and discretion was shown. I think the discretion was appropriate for someone who the guard was obviously certain was genuine. But to then ask for this extra charge - which was entirely correct - to be waived is just taking it too far.

Let's not confuse the issue. The rules are harsh, yes. But what happened was not in any way harsh.

As for Season ticket holders, I think there is a limit to how often this can be done, and it really isn't going to be feasible to apply this to Railcard holders. It's been debated many times before, and I think the general consensus among most is the rules are too harsh but you can't go the other extreme and just refund everyone either. But how to achieve something that is neither one extreme nor the other, I don't think we have a consensus on how we can actually achieve that, though many suggestions have been made (some more feasible than others) in a variety of topics on this forum.

 

[SS4]

If I was the OP I'd be thanking my lucky stars I was only excessed, chalk it down to experience and in future double check the railcard is there before boarding

 

[fulshaw]

I'm sorry, but if I am a customer, why would I care if the guard gets told off? Frankly, that isn't my problem as a customer. Whether I am on a train, buying a loaf of bread or buying a car - I am still a customer and life does not function if we do not treat each other with some leeway.

Some discretion was shown on the train so I do not understand why 'further' discretion can not be shown by a customer service department to a customer. That is what they are there for - to serve and help customers, right?

No-one is disputing rules and regs here and I'm not advocating that. On the contrary. I'm writing soley from the perspective that the poster is a truthful honest person (I have no reason to believe otherwise and I am assuming the train company also has no reaosn to believe otherwise). They are merley stating facts and asking someone to consider their request in the same way that a court of law can take mitigating circumstances into consideration when passing sentence on a defendant. The plain fact is some train compaines do issue refunds for this sort of thing. Not all. But some. I still see no harm in writing in. Send in proof of a valid Railcard - I think it will help the posters case not only to prove that you were not trying to deliberatley cheat the system but is also shows that you are a loyal customer.

Sure - if the customer does this every week and a case history builds up, any cusomer service department worth their salt would not be issuing refunds. But you seem to be starting from the point of view that the customer is wrong, that they have wronged and somehow transgressed 'the railways'. Why not start from the opposite conclusion; that someone made an innocent mistake and refund them the excess - in this single instance?

 

[Clip]

Looking ahead to the possible introduction of a National Railcard for all ages, I think it would be wise to use the season ticket system.

If that ever gets the go-ahead then yes, the season ticket system would be a good idea but again its only twice with this system for most TOCS and this would have to be the rule to stop this from getting abused also.

 

[yorkie]

I'm sorry, but if I am a customer, why would I care if the guard gets told off? Frankly, that isn't my problem as a customer. Whether I am on a train, buying a loaf of bread or buying a car - I am still a customer and life does not function if we do not treat each other with some leeway.

Fair enough; the customer was treated with leeway. So that's sorted!

Some discretion was shown on the train so I do not understand why equal discretion can not be shown by a customer service department to a customer. That is what they are there for - to serve and help customers, right?

Equal discretion? So what's the point of writing in then?

No-one is disputing rules and regs here and I'm not advocating that. On the contrary. I'm writing soley from the perspective that the poster is a truthful honest person (I have no reason to believe otherwise and I am assuming the train company also has no reaosn to believe otherwise).

And have been charged accordingly. If they were not being treated as a "truthful honest person" they would have been treated quite differently.

They are merley stating facts and asking someone to consider their request in the same way that a court of law can take mitigating circumstances into consideration when passing sentence on a defendant.

No, I disagree. There is no penalty here, and no accusation. The lowest possible correct charge was made.

The plain fact is some train compaines do issue refunds for this sort of thing. Not all. But some.

Can you give some examples where someone was excessed to the appropriate fare, and then refunded? I suspect any examples that you can quote are where people were charged full fares.

I still see no harm in writing in. Send in proof of a valid Railcard - I think it will help the posters case not only to prove that you were not trying to deliberatley cheat the system but is also shows that you are a loyal customer.

No-one is suggesting otherwise, so all you are trying to prove is that the guard acted correctly! If he was being accused of trying to "deliberatley cheat the system" then the outcome would have been rather different.

 

[fulshaw]

Let me be very clear so you are not confused any further - the customer can ask for any money they paid on the train to the guard over and above the price of the original ticket that was purchased to be refunded to them so they end up being charged as if they had had their Railcard with them on the train that fateful day.

How interesting that you assume my example of how a court of law may treat mitigating circumstances as directly related to a penalty under a railway bye-law. It was an example. I never mentioned anything about a penalty in my post!

 

[jamesr]

It would be absolutely absurd in any other private business sector on the planet not to refund your customer for the difference.

Tesco openly advertise the fact that if you've forgotten your clubcard on one visit, you can write to them with the receipt and get the points back. Never actually tried doing it, but the only difference between that and the TOC's is that the TOC's customers have actually paid for their loyalty cards.

Regardless of the rules and regulations, any business with any sense of customer service should be happy to refund the full difference back to the railcard ticket price, provided the customer goes to enough effort to bother to get it, which they normally wouldn't...

 

[yorkie]

Let's assume the origin was somewhere like Bournemouth (that fits with the fare and the journey time).

If he was charged the full fare in accordance with the rules, that's £158.00 but he'd still need to get back. He could perhaps buy a railcard while away from home, but it depends on whether he had the right documentation. That'd be £28. Yes, he could get a refund on the original ticket (£81.50 using Bournemouth as the example) less a £10 admin fee, and then got a £15 Grand Central ticket on the 19:04, and then got whatever the cheapest way of getting SWT back is (or get a coach), but you could be talking about incurring costs of £200! That is harsh. Too harsh, I say.

But he was only charged the difference between the discounted fare that he paid (say £81.50) and the correct fare without a railcard (£123.50) = £42, again using Bournemouth as the example. This is quite fortunate as it also resolves the problem for the return journey. He was also lucky because SWT could have issued a Penalty Fare which would have been twice the price to the next stop (e.g. if caught between Basingstoke and Woking, 2 x £33.30 and would then have to buy a brand new ticket from Woking to York (but, again, would have the problem of having to get back to Bournemouth).

I think you can see now that the guard only charged the difference up to the correct fare that the OP would have paid had he gone to the ticket office and they had pointed out he didn't have his railcard, and was extremely fortunate not to be charged the nightmare scenario of the full fare in accordance with the (very harsh) rules!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Let me be very clear so you are not confused any further - the customer can ask for any money they paid on the train to the guard over and above the price of the original ticket that was purchased to be refunded to them so they end up being charged as if they had had their Railcard with them on the train that fateful day.

But this is clearly incorrect as they did not have the Railcard!

How interesting that you assume my example of how a court of law may treat mitigating circumstances as directly related to a penalty under a railway bye-law. It was an example. I never mentioned anything about a penalty in my post!

You talked about "passing sentence on a defendant"; clearly that analogy is about someone accused of wrongdoing. This person has not been accused of any wrongdoing, or charged any penalty. That is not the case here. There is no "defendant".

Tesco openly advertise the fact that if you've forgotten your clubcard on one visit, you can write to them with the receipt and get the points back. Never actually tried doing it, but the only difference between that and the TOC's is that the TOC's customers have actually paid for their loyalty cards.

I once forgot to apply a 15% discount to a meal, if I went back later do you think they'd give me my 15% back as if I held the voucher at that time? That is the equivalent. The clubcard points are quite a different issue.

I'm pro-customer; I think the rules are far too harsh. But the OP was treated appropriately in my view and I can see no grounds for complaint; only praise!

 

[clagmonster]

I agree the rules are (not just seem; are!) harsh.

I'm not so sure. If a passenger boards at a staffed station, yes they are sold a new SOR (by the book) but they can surely have the original ticket refunded as unused, less the admin fee. Surely, when a new ticket is sold, if the passenger gains such a refund at a later date, in effect an excess has been charged, albeit to a higher fare than is the case here. Those cheating the system with no railcard or intention of getting one are stung, those people with a railcard pay a penalty and most won't make the same mistake twice. I don't see another viable way of doing it, unless TIRs are to be issued for all 'forgotton' railcards, then the real dodgers could I suppose be prosecuted but there would be a lot of admin involved.

Compare to the similar situation of a lost reservation with an advance ticket. There is no refund whatsoever of the original ticket, which unless prosecutions take place put the dodgers and the honest mistakers in the same basket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sorry, but if I am a customer, why would I care if the guard gets told off?

If you were to be in a similar situation with the same guard, do you think he would be quite as lenient again having had a telling off? Even if he doesn't remember you, he may start doing everything by the book, in which case many people making honest mistakes would lose out.

 

[jamesr]

I once forgot to apply a 15% discount to a meal, if I went back later do you think they'd give me my 15% back as if I held the voucher at that time? That is the equivalent. The clubcard points are quite a different issue.

I'm pro-customer; I think the rules are far too harsh. But the OP was treated appropriately in my view and I can see no grounds for complaint; only praise!

I do see your point on the voucher issue, and thought about it myself as I was posting. But I don't think it is the same as a railcard. I can't prove I held a 15% discount voucher at a certain point. I can prove I held a railcard from 01/01/2011 to 31/12/2011, which I could have used for a journey this morning, for example. It's absolutely right that people should be made to pay for a "normal price" ticket at the time, but it is bad customer service not to give them an opportunity to claim the money back to take advantage of the railcard that they've already paid for.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, I realise that, but the rules seem harsh when a season ticket holder can be refunded when they have forgotten their ticket.

Once in a year I think (or is it two)? And you are meant to buy a new ticket BEFORE travel if you forget it, so it's not quite the same as being stopped on the train and going 'Damn, left it at home'.

If you don't buy it before, you can expect a PF and will then have to appeal and hope they're feeling generous.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not so sure. If a passenger boards at a staffed station, yes they are sold a new SOR (by the book) but they can surely have the original ticket refunded as unused, less the admin fee. Surely, when a new ticket is sold, if the passenger gains such a refund at a later date, in effect an excess has been charged, albeit to a higher fare than is the case here......

Let's do the sums (again I will go with Bournemouth as it fits, it may be £2 out from the OP's exact origin but the principle is the same).

This scenario:
SSR Fare (that should have been paid originally) = £123.50

SSR Fare paid = £81.50
+ Difference (excess) = £42.00
TOTAL PAID = £123.50

A more 'desperate' guard's scenario:
SOR fare (that could be demanded) = £316.00
+ SSR Fare paid = £81.50
+ SSR Fare refunded = -£71.50
TOTAL PAID = £326.00

Indeed your statement "albeit to a higher fare" is quite correct, but the way you word it makes it sound trivial (this may not have been your intention!) however the difference is far from trivial, in fact it's absolutely astronomical.

I hope this illustrates my point!

Yes, I realise that, but the rules seem harsh when a season ticket holder can be refunded when they have forgotten their ticket.

Once in a year I think (or is it two)? And you are meant to buy a new ticket BEFORE travel if you forget it, so it's not quite the same as being stopped on the train and going 'Damn, left it at home'.

If you don't buy it before, you can expect a PF and will then have to appeal and hope they're feeling generous.

Indeed. And, to WestCoast - I thought you were pro-Penalty Fares? The OP would have got a PF for this had an SWT RPI inspected him. Yet a non-PF TOC inspected him and he was only excessed. I am, therefore, extremely confused with what you feel the correct actions are. You want EC to issue PFs, right? The customer would then have been charged even more. If this was a non-stop London to York train and EC did PFs the single charge would be £239, also another thought occurs: the original ticket couldn't be refunded either as it was used as far as London (so that's £81.50 that can't be refunded, still valid for the rtn portion but not unless a railcard was bought in York!). And the OP would still need to pay extra, on top of the £316, to get back. Still pro-PFs?

 

[WestCoast]

Once in a year I think (or is it two)? And you are meant to buy a new ticket BEFORE travel if you forget it, so it's not quite the same as being stopped on the train and going 'Damn, left it at home'.

Twice on FCC. Whether you buy before or after will depend on the rules of the TOC. If you realise onboard that your season ticket is not with you and you are permitted to buy the ticket on the train, I can't see how that rule would be enforced. If you are not permitted, then I guess it is a PF, which seems unfair. However, the onus is supposedly on the passenger to ensure a ticket (with valid railcard if applicable) is held before entering a train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And, to WestCoast - I thought you were pro-Penalty Fares? The OP would have got a PF for this had an SWT RPI inspected him. Yet a non-PF TOC inspected him and he was only excessed. I am, therefore, extremely confused with what you feel the correct actions are. .....Still pro-PFs?

PFs are not the correct cause of action in any situation of this nature, an excess to the higher value ticket is the correct procedure, and should be so on all TOCs, providing that the passenger does not cheat the system. Neither should PFs exist at all on intercity operators, that would be completely inappropriate and far too harsh against honest mistakes. I am horrified by the thought of EC issuing penalty fares.

When the customer has no outright ticket (and has made a choice to explicitly dodge the fare) then they should be dealt with through proceedings of prosecution. That should be the only circumstance in which this method is used apart from other cases of serious ticketing fraud.

 

[clagmonster]

Let's do the sums (again I will go with Bournemouth as it fits, it may be £2 out from the OP's exact origin but the principle is the same).

This scenario:
SSR Fare (that should have been paid originally) = £123.50

SSR Fare paid = £81.50
+ Difference (excess) = £42.00
TOTAL PAID = £123.50

A more 'desperate' guard's scenario:
SOR fare (that could be demanded) = £316.00
+ SSR Fare paid = £81.50
+ SSR Fare refunded = -£71.50
TOTAL PAID = £326.00

Indeed your statement "albeit to a higher fare" is quite correct, but the way you word it makes it sound trivial (this may not have been your intention!) however the difference is far from trivial, in fact it's absolutely astronomical.
I hope this illustrates my point!

I agree that in some cases the 'excess' is astronomical, however that is down to the SORs being astronomical more than the system being unfair. The system is not ideal, but my point is that it does at lease distinguish chancers from those making honest mistakes. In any case, I think a fair and legitimate way to treat your Bournemouth example would be:
SOS fare (that could be demanded) = £158.00
+ SSS for return leg £122.50
+ SSR Fare paid = £81.50
+ SSR Fare refunded = -£71.50
TOTAL PAID = £290.50
This would work as the guard only has to ching up for the portion being made, in fact if it was an honest mistake I would expect him to offer it, especially as I would expect a reaction to the request for £316 from the passenger.
Of course, a passsenger with their wits about them could buy a new railcard for the return journey, thus bringing the ching for their mistake down to £248.86. I admit it is still astronomical in this case, but I don't see a better system that will catch the dodgers other than a TIR every time.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm sorry, but if I am a customer, why would I care if the guard gets told off? Frankly, that isn't my problem as a customer.

That's a very short sighted view. What happens next time you 'forget' your railcard? That £40 excess could be a £200 fare (as illustrated by Yorkie) because the guards have been told off for showing discretion.