Misinformation from platform officer

[melevittfl]

Perhaps, but would the average person know that and risk going to court over it? And there certainly is a realistic possibility of a criminal record which could be equally career limiting.

I bet all those poor postmasters who were stitched up by fraudulent Royal Mail prosecutors didn’t think they’d end up in jail either.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps, but would the average person know that and risk going to court over it? And there certainly is a realistic possibility of a criminal record which could be equally career limiting.

The reality is the average person seems to think a criminal record is the mark of Cain. It isn’t. You can live a very normal life and participate in 99% of the job market with one.

 

[GD1982]

Perhaps, but would the average person know that and risk going to court over it? And there certainly is a realistic possibility of a criminal record which could be equally career limiting.

I bet all those poor postmasters who were stitched up by fraudulent Royal Mail prosecutors didn’t think they’d end up in jail either.

Post Office Ltd prosecutors not Royal Mail.

 

[melevittfl]

The reality is the average person seems to think a criminal record is the mark of Cain. It isn’t. You can live a very normal life and participate in 99% of the job market with one.

That may be, but the original point is that people are too afraid to go to court due to possibility of a criminal record and what that means ( rightly or wrongly) compared to a civil suit.

This means the railway gets to force settlement that enrich themselves above their actual losses, for example.

Post Office Ltd prosecutors not Royal Mail.

Yes, thanks for the correction.

 

[6Gman]

In what other industry would someone be penalised for following the information given by a member of staff? I love railways, but sometimes (more frequently nowadays) I wonder if TOCs really understand the concept of customer care.

But we don't know for certain what information was given nor what precise question it was in response to.

There's an important difference between "My York train's cancelled, can I use this one?" and "I have an advanced operator-specific ticket; can I use it on this train?"

 

[Titfield]

That may be, but the original point is that people are too afraid to go to court due to possibility of a criminal record and what that means ( rightly or wrongly) compared to a civil suit.

This means the railway gets to force settlement that enrich themselves above their actual losses, for example.


Yes, thanks for the correction.

But do they enrich themselves above their actual losses?

What is the real cost of investigating a case where a passenger with an invalid ticket has been stopped?

Some will doubtless argue that the cost of the ticket already purchased should be taken into account but does this simply encourage a form of pay when challenged because it tilts the odds towards not possessing a valid ticket?

 

[LowLevel]

I think it's quite reasonable to say there are so many different factors at play to make this situation unfortunate here you would hope common sense would apply. Hopefully an appeal is successful.

 

[melevittfl]

But do they enrich themselves above their actual losses?

Yes

Some will doubtless argue that the cost of the ticket already purchased should be taken into account

It’s not just “some” it’s how the law works. In civil and criminal suits the court would only award the company their actual losses.

but does this simply encourage a form of pay when challenged because it tilts the odds towards not possessing a valid ticket?

What encourages “pay when challenged” is that tickets are only rarely checked in an effort to save money.

There's an important difference between "My York train's cancelled, can I use this one?" and "I have an advanced operator-specific ticket; can I use it on this train?"

Then the railway representative could have said “Let me have a look at your ticket so I can give you the correct answer.”

 

[LowLevel]

It is worth bearing in mind that platform staff often don't have any revenue training. Whilst they're working on the platforms they're most unlikely to ask absolutely everyone who asks any question at all about a train for their ticket in order to assess it's validity to qualify their answer.

To an extent the customer needs to be aware that if they have purchased a restrictive product, to which there is invariably at least some indication at the point of purchase, and that they may need to offer up evidence of it if they want to make a detailed query.

Otherwise you end with the likes of station cleaners or fitters having to ask for tickets every time they're asked a question for fear of their answer being held against them, which they might not even be able to interpret in the first place.

I always ask people who come out with "the person on the platform said it was this train" - "and did you show the person who said it was OK your ticket?" and the answer is almost always "oh no, I just asked if this was the train to X" or "no, I said my train is cancelled and they said this is the next one".

The circumstances here with Northern misleadingly indicating the destination of the train whilst still selling through tickets for the journey, along with a red herring cancellation do however make for a compelling argument that the matter should be dismissed, if you ask me. I'd not have issued the penalty in the first place, but hindsight is a wonderful thing and the inspector won't have had the facts neatly laid out for them with a bit of digging as we have.

I also think that often non revenue trained railway staff make the mistake of thinking that ticket inspectors are much more reasonable and forgiving than they often are, and that "it'll be OK" is genuinely the case - of course until it isn't.

 

[robbeech]

I also, don’t understand how I was told it was ok to catch another train without a valid ticket. (Although, I did ask twice that it was ok - to which he said yea)

Unfortunately an alarming number of staff haven't got a clue, i'd love to say it a bit more diplomatically, but it doesn't quite get the point across in the same way.

However this pans out : and I wish you the best of luck : please remember in future that Advance tickets are EXACT as to time. If you are booked on the 1429, it will not be the case that your train departs at any other time such as 1430, or indeed 1428, or 1432.

But this isn't accurate, not in the slightest. Between buying a ticket and the train running they may have changed the time it departs a particular station by a minute or 2 either way for operational reasons. If an operator had changed the 1429 to leave at 1427 or 1430 between booking the ticket and the date of travel its unlikely the retailer would have let the passenger know this change (i appreciate some do) so you'd then be faced with finding a train at an 18 (+ sections) platform station that doesn't show as going to your destination that doesn't leave at the time your ticket says that also shares a departure time with another train that DOES show your ticketed destination by the same operator. The passenger cannot win and the railway wants to keep it this way.

In what other industry would someone be penalised for following the information given by a member of staff? I love railways, but sometimes (more frequently nowadays) I wonder if TOCs really understand the concept of customer care.

They don't.

Clearly the member of staff didn't know that the 1429 on the ticket was actually a train not advertised as calling at York, otherwise they'd have told the customer to get on it when they were shown the relevant itinerary.

If that's the case how can the customer be expected to know?

The Railway expects the passenger to know every single rule, yet simultaneously hopes they know none of them.

It may be impossible for the OP to prove that authorisation was given. But it would be even more difficult for the Railway to prove that it wasn`t.

This is true, however for this to be of any use the passenger would need to go to court. Outside court the railway can essentially do what they like when they like with this sort of thing.

So now we have two customers at the same station, given incorrect information (albeit doubtless given in all good faith), that has resulted in them being given a penalty. Neither customer was trying to gain an advantage, either timewise or monetary. They both had valid tickets, so they thought after asking representatives of TOCs. Yet they received a penalty. This can't be right, this can't be right.

The Railway.

The issue here is not the passenger’s destination, but the final destination of the train, which is the only thing which will ever be shown.

But we've established that the via Harrogate services do NOT show the final destination.

There's an important difference between "My York train's cancelled, can I use this one?" and "I have an advanced operator-specific ticket; can I use it on this train?"

Would a passenger be expected to use this kind of terminology?
The former is perfectly acceptable, though they should be questioned on a ticket or tickets held to obtain the answer.

 

[melevittfl]

It is worth bearing in mind that platform staff often don't have any revenue training.

And the railway chooses to not train staff properly because it saves them money. Knowing that most people will not risk a criminal conviction to challenge the resulting accusation of traveling with an invalid ticket due to information relied from a railway employee.

Otherwise you end with the likes of station cleaners or fitters having to ask for tickets every time they're asked a question for fear of their answer being held against them, which they might not even be able to interpret in the first place.

So customers are expected to fully understand and interpret the myriad railway ticketing rules, but not staff?

And they could easily just say, I’m sorry I don’t know you’ll have to ask that person over there.

I always ask people who come out with "the person on the platform said it was this train" - "and did you show the person who said it was OK your ticket?" and the answer is almost always "oh no, I just asked if this was the train to X" or "no, I said my train is cancelled and they said this is the next one".

And again that’s expecting the customer to be more aware of ticketing rules than a railway staff member.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

And again that’s expecting the customer to be more aware of ticketing rules than a railway staff member.

Certainly seems to be asymmetrical consequences for whomever gets it wrong.

 

[LowLevel]

And the railway chooses to not train staff properly because it saves them money. Knowing that most people will not risk a criminal conviction to challenge the resulting accusation of traveling with an invalid ticket due to information relied from a railway employee.



So customers are expected to fully understand and interpret the myriad railway ticketing rules, but not staff?

And they could easily just say, I’m sorry I don’t know you’ll have to ask that person over there.


And again that’s expecting the customer to be more aware of ticketing rules than a railway staff member.

The key difference of course is that I know all that and it takes a lot for me to do any form of penalising anyone over a simple mistake with a ticket - I much prefer explanations.

However it is a fact that not all railway staff members are equal and not everyone you see on a station is going to know about ticketing issues, and more to the point, isn't going to answer every single query made with "can I see your ticket please", and then wait while someone fails to boot it up on their phone, or hunts through the bags, whilst they're in the middle of doing something else.

I know if someone mentions their train is cancelled or they've missed it to ask more questions. Not everyone will. Not everyone has time for an in depth debate and some people get very annoyed when you tell them to go and ask someone else.

If the passenger asks a simple question, they're likely to get a simple answer. "Is this the train to London?" "Yes". Not "can I see your ticket to make sure you're allowed to catch this one before I say yes".

As I've said - I think the railway is entirely at fault in your particular case and made what should have been something very simple very difficult.

 

[Dai Corner]

The key difference of course is that I know all that and it takes a lot for me to do any form of penalising anyone over a simple mistake with a ticket - I much prefer explanations.

However it is a fact that not all railway staff members are equal and not everyone you see on a station is going to know about ticketing issues, and more to the point, isn't going to answer every single query made with "can I see your ticket please", and then wait while someone fails to boot it up on their phone, or hunts through the bags, whilst they're in the middle of doing something else.

I know if someone mentions their train is cancelled or they've missed it to ask more questions. Not everyone will. Not everyone has time for an in depth debate and some people get very annoyed when you tell them to go and ask someone else.

If the passenger asks a simple question, they're likely to get a simple answer. "Is this the train to London?" "Yes". Not "can I see your ticket to make sure you're allowed to catch this one before I say yes".

As I've said - I think the railway is entirely at fault in your particular case and made what should have been something very simple very difficult.

Or just say "Sorry, I'm not qualified to answer that. Please ask at the customer service desk or ticket office" if they're not revenue trained.

 

[greyman42]

The reality is the average person seems to think a criminal record is the mark of Cain. It isn’t. You can live a very normal life and participate in 99% of the job market with one.

The reality is the average person seems to think a criminal record is the mark of Cain.

That would be the "holier than thou" brigade.

You can live a very normal life and participate in 99% of the job market with one.

Indeed, and unless you have been convicted of a very serious offence, 99% of people could not care less.

 

[Haywain]

This means the railway gets to force settlement that enrich themselves above their actual losses, for example.

For the vast majority of people who come here for help a settlement is considerably cheaper for them than going to court and being found guilty and fined. It is not all about the conviction.

 

[island]

It would be rather helpful in my opinion for a system of train numbers to be used so that an advance ticket could be expressed as (say) valid for train VT2430 rather than valid for the 14:23 to Wolverhampton.

 

[AlterEgo]

For the vast majority of people who come here for help a settlement is considerably cheaper for them than going to court and being found guilty and fined. It is not all about the conviction.

Indeed. The court fine is almost always more than the settlement asked for, and that’s before costs and surcharges.

 

[anothertyke]

Or just say "Sorry, I'm not qualified to answer that. Please ask at the customer service desk or ticket office" if they're not revenue trained.

I agree. It was noticeable from the OP that the 1430 was cancelled at 1410 and the TPE departed at 1414. Maybe the platform staff had primary duties like despatch, who knows what precise question they were asked. As with many such happenings it took place in a tight timeframe.

 

[robbeech]

It would be rather helpful in my opinion for a system of train numbers to be used so that an advance ticket could be expressed as (say) valid for train VT2430 rather than valid for the 14:23 to Wolverhampton.

Especially given the game of changing the timetable by a minute here and there that seems to be taking the Railway by storm nowadays.
If headcodes were actually unique that would likely do.

That said, there is the train id (all be it a bit long perhaps). I’ve successfully used this a few times when a timetable has changed and the headcodes have changed and I want to know what my original train now is so I can use my seat reservations.

 

[zero]

But this isn't accurate, not in the slightest. Between buying a ticket and the train running they may have changed the time it departs a particular station by a minute or 2 either way for operational reasons. If an operator had changed the 1429 to leave at 1427 or 1430 between booking the ticket and the date of travel its unlikely the retailer would have let the passenger know this change (i appreciate some do) so you'd then be faced with finding a train at an 18 (+ sections) platform station that doesn't show as going to your destination that doesn't leave at the time your ticket says that also shares a departure time with another train that DOES show your ticketed destination by the same operator. The passenger cannot win and the railway wants to keep it this way.

Interesting idea. So if a passenger has an advance to York valid on the 1430 to "Poppleton", and there is a Northern fast to York at 1429. The 1430 is retimed to 1431 and the 1429 is retimed to 1430.

Would any court convict a passenger who gets the wrong train which is now at the right time?

 

[fandroid]

Interesting idea. So if a passenger has an advance to York valid on the 1430 to "Poppleton", and there is a Northern fast to York at 1429. The 1430 is retimed to 1431 and the 1429 is retimed to 1430.

Would any court convict a passenger who gets the wrong train which is now at the right time?

But the public description of the trains will remain the same. The 1430 to Poppleton will remain that. The departure indicators will just go to "expected at 1431" reflecting the change to the working timetable.

I've never ever heard an announcement change the train description, just announce it's new timing or its degree of lateness.

 

[robbeech]

But the public description of the trains will remain the same. The 1430 to Poppleton will remain that. The departure indicators will just go to "expected at 1431" reflecting the change to the working timetable.

No it won’t. If a train is retimed in the timetable for operational reasons before 2200 the night before then it will show on the boards as the new time.

If the 1429 to Poppleton has been the 1429 to Poppleton for 20 years but one day due to engineering works they end up having to retime it to 1426 then they will just do that and the 1426 to Poppleton will show on the board on that day.