Northern Rail 2 Part Return Anomaly

[NoOnesFool]

It's well advertised that outward return tickets are only valid with the return portion. However, nothing is said about the other way around, the return only being valid with the outward ticket. I was shocked that at Manchester Victoria the Revenue Protection Officers checked the ticket and also asked for the outward as well. Is this a new term brought in? I've never known returns not to be valid without the outward before. Some ticket gates even retain the outward on exit! It is all captured on camera and you can view it here

, it's lucky that the outward wasn't swallowed, or perhaps it could have meant a Penalty Fare! I'm a little bit annoyed at this, as it seems harsh, despite the RPOs being polite.

Railforums Compliance Regarding External Links: Security Guard Says It Was The Sunglasses. Two RPOs approach on the stairway and ask to check the ticket, the ticket is presented but they also ask for the outward portion of the ticket.

 

[Starmill]

They're permitted to ask a customer whatever they want to, within reason. They wouldn't be permitted to refuse travel (or do anything else that may break the contract, such as asking the customer to pay again) because a return portion was being used without any outward portion present.

It looks like they were trying to cross-examine the customer in this circumstance by asking for the other portion. You can see they also ask how the journey from Ashton-under-Lyne was, which is a way of trying to spot lies (e.g. has this person shown me a ticket they've just picked up off the floor?).

Goodness only knows what prompted such a line of questions.

Also, these look like so-called Travel Safe Officers. I don't think they're authorised collectors for the purposes of the Penalty Fare rules, so they probably wouldn't be issuing them. They may however still ask to see tickets under the Byelaws.

 

[Titfield]

IMHO the hi-viz wearing staff are carrying out a check to ensure that the person is safe and well, not requiring any assistance and not contemplating any form of self harm.

The ticket check is of a secondary purpose to check that the person has a ticket and thus both permitted and has a reason to be on the station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that bridge not an emergency exit and thus the OP should not really be there anyway?

 

[skyhigh]

Seems fine to me - it clearly was not a ticket inspection. Bloke hanging about in a quiet area of the station in the rain filming (you can even see from the video they zoom in on police walking past!). Given previous events at Victoria, it's not a surprise they came over to check you're okay and not in any distress, and to see what you're up to.

For what it's worth, making reasonable requests to see how someone reacts is a good measure of compliance and helps to assess if they're a threat. I strongly doubt they would have had an issue if you couldn't provide the outward coupon.

Polite questions and conversation from the TSOs, then they leave you to carry on with your business. I don't see an issue.

 

[AlterEgo]

Standard welfare check on, it seems. Polite and courteous, exactly what Travel Safe Officers should be doing.

 

[yorkie]

No big issue here, but asking for the outward portion does seem a bit suspicious; if a passenger is on their return journey there would be no need to show the outward portion and there is no requirement for such a portion to be held.

However there is no way to know what they would have said or done if the outward ticket had been discarded/swallowed by barriers; without knowing they would have done anything wrong, we cannot assume they would have.

It's possible that if the answer had been "I no longer have the outward ticket" the answer would have been "that's fine".

Are there any reports of such officers actually stating return portions are invalid without outward portions being held? If not, then I don't think there is anything to be concerned about.

 

[Comfy]

Seems fine to me - it clearly was not a ticket inspection. Bloke hanging about in a quiet area of the station in the rain filming (you can even see from the video they zoom in on police walking past!). Given previous events at Victoria, it's not a surprise they came over to check you're okay and not in any distress, and to see what you're up to.

For what it's worth, making reasonable requests to see how someone reacts is a good measure of compliance and helps to assess if they're a threat. I strongly doubt they would have had an issue if you couldn't provide the outward coupon.

Polite questions and conversation from the TSOs, then they leave you to carry on with your business. I don't see an issue.

Totally agree. I'm pleased they checked up on him.

 

[Starmill]

Is that bridge not an emergency exit and thus the OP should not really be there anyway?

There's never been any signage to that effect on it that I'm aware of. A couple of weeks ago I used it myself and there is actually a sign on it on platform 6 that says 'way out'.

As far as I am aware none of the three footbridges at Manchester Victoria has been designated as part of emergency exits. Perhaps you're thinking of somewhere else.

 

[pottyy]

Return tickets are valid without inward part,probably just wondering why someone was stood in the rain with dark glasses on filming,bit coincidental you was filming as they turned up maybe some had reported it to them.

 

[gray1404]

They should have left the chap alone. Asking for the other portion of the ticket was petty. The comments about being an authorised person was very revealing of his character. It was a forced interaction that was unnecessary. The comments from the so-called officer about wearing sunglasses in the rain was unprofessional in my opinion. It did not need to be commented upon. Next time they should leave people alone.

 

[AlterEgo]

They should have left the chap alone.

They can speak to whoever they like. I have had platform staff ask me if I'm okay standing on the ends of platforms. This is fine and I encourage it.

Asking for the other portion of the ticket was petty.

Perhaps it was, but the filmer's somewhat abrupt "why shouldn't I be?" would perhaps prompt me to ask a few questions if I was the TSO to establish if the filmer was alright, and whether they had a right to be on the premises.

The comments about being an authorised person was very revealing of his character.

He is an authorised person, why shouldn't he identify himself as one?

The comments from the so-called officer

No, he was just "the officer", not a so-called one, unless you think he's impersonating one.

about wearing sunglasses in the rain was unprofessional in my opinion. It did not need to be commented upon. Next time they should leave people alone.

It may well have been better unsaid, but someone standing at a relatively unfrequented area of the station with dark glasses and filming things in the rain is probably going to attract attention.

There was no harm done by the interaction and my advice for people who are spoken to by people like TSOs is just to be nice and help them. They have a right to speak to you and ask questions and you do not have an absolute right - only a conditional one - to be on a station.