That is exactly the sort of question SET would be considering if they were doing this:
However, it would appear they prefer this:
Last edited:
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Railway staff lying to the BTP
- Thread starter RJ
- Start date
- Status
That is exactly the sort of question SET would be considering if they were doing this:
However, it would appear they prefer this:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
There is no good reason why this should not be done. Someone has speculated that SET want some publicity for their High Speed services and that may be the reason! I heard a rumour that common sense was going to be applied and the daft Plus High Speed tickets were to be renamed Any Permitted, but there isn't any sign of this happening. I guess SET will be opposed to the change, and DfT, Passenger Focus are both toothless.
I just wish they'd ditch the premium altogether and let people travel the most appropriate way for their needs. Then put Stratford International into the zonal system.
HS1 is not some high-quality Intercity service. It's a pretty plastic (albeit very nice looking) train that goes a bit faster than other trains because of in-cab signalling (that might one day see such speeds elsewhere), with no first class or buffet service. Is there even Wi-Fi on them?
It seems to be a great excuse to penalise and harass many passengers and generally cause loads of hassle.
HS1 is not some high-quality Intercity service. It's a pretty plastic (albeit very nice looking) train that goes a bit faster than other trains because of in-cab signalling (that might one day see such speeds elsewhere), with no first class or buffet service. Is there even Wi-Fi on them?
It seems to be a great excuse to penalise and harass many passengers and generally cause loads of hassle.
notadriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,653
I don't hear complaints about London Midlands cheaper fares vs Virgins or FCC vs East Coast fares.
notadriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,653
I think that actually might happen. That is why staffing arrangements for the Javelin services are completely separate to main line. Workings are not mixed.
craigwilson
Member
And Virgin/EC are proper intercity express services, with Wifi/first class/onboard shops etc, unlike Southeastern. The Southeastern high speed service is just a slightly faster jumped-up commuter service.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,254
The analogy doesn't work.
I can get a Virgin train or a LM train to Coventry or Birmingham from Euston. Both trains use the same route (WCML).
The LM only ticket is cheaper (£28 for an off peak return as opposed to £48.60 for a non TOC specific off peak return), however the service is slower and doesn't have as many facilities as the VT service. I realise you can get an advance ticket for VT that will significantly reduce the cost, however I'm using walk on fares as most passengers will.
I cannot hop on an E* at St Pancras and hop off at Ashford. They won't let you do it.
Last edited:
Exactly. Let them stick a compartment carriage on it and I may reconsider.
Absolutely. Get rid of the vanity exercise restrictions and tickets.
I travelled this weekend with people on two different tickets routed ✠EC & CONNECTNS whilst I had a +HS1 ticket - none of us had any problems. Perhaps it's just Any Permitted they don't like.
I had comments from my companions about just how slow it travelled beyond Ebbsfleet!
RJ
Established Member
I received a letter from Southeastern. For anyone who has not been following, I travelled from Canterbury West to Stratford International using a Canterbury West to Tilbury Riverside ticket routed "TILBY EXCL FERRY." The letter states the following:
This is a verbatim quote from the letter, including all spelling, grammatical and typographical errors.
I quite succinctly explained to them that under Condition 13, I was entitled to travel by the shortest route, which involves travelling via a station in the Tilbury Group, Tilbury Town. ATOC's own data shows this as the shortest route between Canterbury West and Tilbury Riverside but to date, I haven't had any success with getting anybody in the industry to acknowledge that the shortest route is always a permitted route, despite it being clearly written in the NRCoC.
The ferry cannot be used as part of the shortest route, because mileages are given as defined in the National Rail Timetable. As far as the NRT is concerned, the ferry does not exist. It is neither shown as a symbol or in footnotes in any for the tables for Tilbury or Gravesend, nor is it shown on any of the graphic maps. Canterbury is not considered as an interchange for routing purposes so there was no obligation for me to transfer to Canterbury East at any point.
Until such a time that Southeastern can identify a member of their staff who understands what the NRCoC is and who knows how to use the National Routeing Guide - or those who are responsible for administrating the NRCOC provide a definitive answer, I'll continue with my present stance. I paid Southeastern £57.35 on the day for the journey from Canterbury West to Stratford International, which included the presentation of a valid ticket to all inspection staff that day and they're telling me they want more money still for this journey, otherwise they're going to commence legal proceedings under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
Southeastern are also refusing to acknowledge that they are subject to the Penalty Fare Rules and have been happy to uphold the Penalty Fare in the full knowledge that it was issued illegitimately. I have directly referred them to the relevant clause stating that a Penalty Fare must not be issued if a passenger is perceived to be off route on a number of occasions. It's not just the RPI on the day who made the mistake - their Customer Relations/HQ staff have also decided that the rule in question is not necessary for them to uphold and their IPFAS division rejected the Penalty Fare appeal I made, despite me quoting the rule to them. This is something which I will be pushing to be dealt with formally. The sad thing is that staff I know who work in revenue protection genuinely believe that the appeals people know what they are doing and will put matters right if they made a mistake in issuing a notice!
I don't appreciate being threatened with court action because of people who for one reason or another, have misunderstood the rules they are supposed to be working with on a daily basis. I'm under pressure right now as I have impending exams and don't need the stress!
This is a verbatim quote from the letter, including all spelling, grammatical and typographical errors.
I quite succinctly explained to them that under Condition 13, I was entitled to travel by the shortest route, which involves travelling via a station in the Tilbury Group, Tilbury Town. ATOC's own data shows this as the shortest route between Canterbury West and Tilbury Riverside but to date, I haven't had any success with getting anybody in the industry to acknowledge that the shortest route is always a permitted route, despite it being clearly written in the NRCoC.
The ferry cannot be used as part of the shortest route, because mileages are given as defined in the National Rail Timetable. As far as the NRT is concerned, the ferry does not exist. It is neither shown as a symbol or in footnotes in any for the tables for Tilbury or Gravesend, nor is it shown on any of the graphic maps. Canterbury is not considered as an interchange for routing purposes so there was no obligation for me to transfer to Canterbury East at any point.
Until such a time that Southeastern can identify a member of their staff who understands what the NRCoC is and who knows how to use the National Routeing Guide - or those who are responsible for administrating the NRCOC provide a definitive answer, I'll continue with my present stance. I paid Southeastern £57.35 on the day for the journey from Canterbury West to Stratford International, which included the presentation of a valid ticket to all inspection staff that day and they're telling me they want more money still for this journey, otherwise they're going to commence legal proceedings under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
Southeastern are also refusing to acknowledge that they are subject to the Penalty Fare Rules and have been happy to uphold the Penalty Fare in the full knowledge that it was issued illegitimately. I have directly referred them to the relevant clause stating that a Penalty Fare must not be issued if a passenger is perceived to be off route on a number of occasions. It's not just the RPI on the day who made the mistake - their Customer Relations/HQ staff have also decided that the rule in question is not necessary for them to uphold and their IPFAS division rejected the Penalty Fare appeal I made, despite me quoting the rule to them. This is something which I will be pushing to be dealt with formally. The sad thing is that staff I know who work in revenue protection genuinely believe that the appeals people know what they are doing and will put matters right if they made a mistake in issuing a notice!
I don't appreciate being threatened with court action because of people who for one reason or another, have misunderstood the rules they are supposed to be working with on a daily basis. I'm under pressure right now as I have impending exams and don't need the stress!
Last edited:
It strikes me that a TOC which quite blatantly does not follow the Penalty Fare rules should lose the right to implement them; I would suggest a letter to Passenger Focus copied to the Secretary of State for Transport including SouthEastern's joke response could assist in that outcome.
If the issue does go to Court don't forget to claim all of your costs for legal representation, either covering professional representation or your own time as a litigant in person, from SouthEastern.
"I can inform you that the routing on your ticket stated that you would need to use the ferry to travel to Tilbury."
Oh no it doesn't!
Anyone can check what the website says.
Go to the Southeastern website, put in Canterbury to Tilbury, click "show slower routes" and it says "Via Tilbury but Not via Ferry"
However it does not at all surprise me that SouthEastern - who see customers as enemies - deny this. They'd argue the world was flat if they thought they could get away with it!
When selecting this cheaper option, it used to provide itineraries via Stratford, but now says "No fares have been found for your selected journey."
Here's what I wrote in our Fares Guide about itineraries:
So, ATOC say " the purchaser should be able to use the ticket for that journey" but SET (and other Companies, such as ScotRail) completely disregard that!
Do some airlines similarly disregard itineraries, or is this problem unique to the rail industry?
Oh no it doesn't!
Anyone can check what the website says.
Go to the Southeastern website, put in Canterbury to Tilbury, click "show slower routes" and it says "Via Tilbury but Not via Ferry"
However it does not at all surprise me that SouthEastern - who see customers as enemies - deny this. They'd argue the world was flat if they thought they could get away with it!
When selecting this cheaper option, it used to provide itineraries via Stratford, but now says "No fares have been found for your selected journey."
Here's what I wrote in our Fares Guide about itineraries:
yorkie said:
So, ATOC say " the purchaser should be able to use the ticket for that journey" but SET (and other Companies, such as ScotRail) completely disregard that!
Do some airlines similarly disregard itineraries, or is this problem unique to the rail industry?
Harpers Tate
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2013
- Messages
- 1,707
It appears to be endemic within the Rail Insustry (and I don't single out any one company here) that each and every person boarding a train is considered to be guilty of some sort of fraud or fare evasion attempt, unless they can prove otherwise to the satisfaction of whichever member of staff may be asking. And that, if that member of staff isn't satisfied (whether by actual fact or by his own lack of expertise) then you remain guilty.
What's even more saddening is that the same level of guilt is applied by those in "Customer Services" roles as well; people who could and should, in EVERY case, fully reasearch the customer's issue and deal with it, not according to some mysterious hidden internal document (which includes the "routing guide - nobody could expect a member of the public to comprehend that), but according to information that is readily available in the public domain in a form comprehensible to the layman. And in cases of any doubt, give the benefit of that doubt to the customer. Always. That's just simply being reasonable.
Everybody is suspect as soon as they enter the premises. I have seen too many totally genuine tales of people who have been "fined" (by which term I intentionally INCLUDE the forced purchase of any fare greater than that with which the same journey may have been made by the same person at a walk-on rate) in entirely valid and genuine circumstances.
The Rail Industry, presumably with the support of the Government, appears to consider itself a "special case" - in it's penalties and terms of carriage and so on. And, from a purely commercial perspective, in the way it treats its customers.
What's even more saddening is that the same level of guilt is applied by those in "Customer Services" roles as well; people who could and should, in EVERY case, fully reasearch the customer's issue and deal with it, not according to some mysterious hidden internal document (which includes the "routing guide - nobody could expect a member of the public to comprehend that), but according to information that is readily available in the public domain in a form comprehensible to the layman. And in cases of any doubt, give the benefit of that doubt to the customer. Always. That's just simply being reasonable.
Everybody is suspect as soon as they enter the premises. I have seen too many totally genuine tales of people who have been "fined" (by which term I intentionally INCLUDE the forced purchase of any fare greater than that with which the same journey may have been made by the same person at a walk-on rate) in entirely valid and genuine circumstances.
The Rail Industry, presumably with the support of the Government, appears to consider itself a "special case" - in it's penalties and terms of carriage and so on. And, from a purely commercial perspective, in the way it treats its customers.
RJ
Established Member
To be fair, guilty upon proven innocent is publically given as the principle that Penalty Fare work on;
https://www.penaltyfares.co.uk/static/appeal.aspx said:
Generically speaking, not aimed at any TOC in particular, Customer Relations aren't the experts, their role is to consult an appropriate figure for advice that they can then pass on to customers. They may well consult a Pricing Manager, Revenue Protection/Development Manager or someone of similar standing as their word is supposed to be authoritative. The thing is, I'm not scared to persevere in consistently contradicting those people if they're categorically wrong. If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't particularly want to be proven wrong in front of my subordinates and colleagues by someone like me - a student, barely out of their teenage years and with several years less experience. It could well be avoided but they're leaving themselves open to it by being complacent and assuming it is not necessary to consult the relevant documents prior to giving out advice to their colleagues in Customer Relations or Prosecutions.
Misunderstandings should be acknowledged when highlighted, corrected and nipped in the bud. I'm highly unimpressed with Southeastern's handling of the matter so far - what they're doing is akin to sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to pay attention. I thought I was getting somewhere when one of their Customer Relations team leaders telephoned me, politely listened to everything I had to say and noted it down to be investigated. The letter I just quoted was in response to that telephone call and the tone of it sounds suspiciously similar to what I was told when I rang up Southeastern's retail management department to query the validity of the ticket some weeks ago.
Wolfie said:
This is the second TOC I've come across now who seems to be oblivious to the fact that there are certain circumstances where a Penalty Fare is not to be issued. Given they and their RPSS division have gone one better and chosen to uphold the Penalty Fare when I explained this to them in detail, as I say I will be formally reporting the matter as it's in the public interest.
soil said:
They can keep the £7.35 as that's what I paid for the original ticket, but I want all of the £50 I gave them in RTVs to part pay that Penalty Fare back!
RochdalePioneers
Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 517
So to summarise the SET position:
1. The valid route according to the rules is invalid cos we say so
2. The route we think you should take is invalid according to rules but don't worry, our website told you to take it
3. Well OK it didn't tell you to take it because its an invalid route but we think it should be allowed to say that so if we say it did then it did even if it didn't
4. The rules for Penalty Fares are that unless you pay a supplement to travel on HS1 we think we should be allowed to issue a penalty as peasant fares need to be discouraged
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
1. The valid route according to the rules is invalid cos we say so
2. The route we think you should take is invalid according to rules but don't worry, our website told you to take it
3. Well OK it didn't tell you to take it because its an invalid route but we think it should be allowed to say that so if we say it did then it did even if it didn't
4. The rules for Penalty Fares are that unless you pay a supplement to travel on HS1 we think we should be allowed to issue a penalty as peasant fares need to be discouraged
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
RJ
Established Member
It does seem a bit daft to me. It appears they didn't read the rest of Condition 13, which states that any restrictions to permitted routes will be shown on the ticket. The only restriction shown is that the route must pass through Tilbury, this is satisfied by passing through Tilbury Town to reach Tilbury Riverside.
If there is one positive element to that letter, it is their admission that the ticket was excessible to an alternate route, the Any Permitted fare. This should be sufficient evidence to support my assertion that the Penalty Fare was issued illegitimately. It should be frustrating that I have to be so persistent in training their organisation on these elementary matters, but I don't have any problems with playing the long game - I am rather patient in character.
They are reaching the climes of desperation when they have to start imagining things that aren't there - the supposed explicit statement on the ticket that the ferry must be used. It will take time, but I have faith that they will see sense in to not too distant future.
I have exhausted the proper channels in appealing the Penalty Fare and once again, the system has failed. I stand for what is correct - so if they insist on keeping up this charade instead of cutting their losses and acknowledging that I'm right in maintaining that I did nothing in contravention of the rules, I'm quite willing to go as far as they're willing to take the matter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Something like that! I've already taken steps towards having the situation reviewed formally. If it is appropriate for me to do so, I will be sure to keep everybody updated on the progress of the matter.
Polarbear
Established Member
Aside from the thread, but the bus industry can often act in this way - passengers guilty until proven innocent.
I have had a few incidences where various tickets have not been accepted by bus drivers. Producing leaflets that confirm validity does not always work either & it does put me off having to battle with the same issues, time after time, just because of poor training & lack of customer service.
I suggest you get your MP involved. Look up when their surgery time is and pop along to talk to him/her rather than writing. They have an ability to ask questions in the right places. They will also be interested that its a systemic problem as well as a personal one.
Tom C
Member
- Joined
- 4 Jul 2005
- Messages
- 549
I have read this thread with interest and a degree of sadness and horror. Whilst its admirable that staff are striving to tackle ticketless travel, which I will state is not the case in this instance, the dreadful way that the matter was dealt with just simply cannot be allowed to go unpunished.
If you have doubts relating to the validity of a ticket and you cannot be 100% sure either way then you either issue a TIR (if your TOC does them, why ALL of them don't is simply beyond me) or a MG11 (which sadly is the only option other than a Penalty Fare for many RPI's), allow the person to travel and then ascertain whether there is cause to take the matter further. The only reason the BTP should have been involved is if there is a refusal to give details or the person becomes aggressive or violent towards the staff member. What is also clear is that many officers of the BTP also have a lack of knowledge of ticketing which considering they are a transport focused branch of the police is also not acceptable. They should have a complete knowledge of railway law which far to many simply do not have
Training for all staff in ticketing is simply not fit for purpose. There should be a uniform course for staff dealing with tickets be it selling them, checking them or both and most importantly a port of call for on train staff who wish to query the validity of a ticket which would put matters to bed and save needless issues for both the passenger and the staff member. You are not expected to know everything but you should be able to go somewhere when you don't and all the current system does is vilify staff when they try and get it wrong and cause needless stress to the passenger.
What is also being highlighted time and time again is that the appeals procedures for Penalty Fares is also not fit for purpose and once again, there should be a uniform body that is completely clear of any influence from TOC's other than allowing them to state their case in an appeal with people who are experts in the field to ensure that the people who are deserving are made to pay and more importantly those who are not are cleared and reimbursed quickly and without fuss.
It genuinely saddens me that there are so many highlighted issues with ticketing in this country but nobody seems to care to do anything about it.
If you have doubts relating to the validity of a ticket and you cannot be 100% sure either way then you either issue a TIR (if your TOC does them, why ALL of them don't is simply beyond me) or a MG11 (which sadly is the only option other than a Penalty Fare for many RPI's), allow the person to travel and then ascertain whether there is cause to take the matter further. The only reason the BTP should have been involved is if there is a refusal to give details or the person becomes aggressive or violent towards the staff member. What is also clear is that many officers of the BTP also have a lack of knowledge of ticketing which considering they are a transport focused branch of the police is also not acceptable. They should have a complete knowledge of railway law which far to many simply do not have
Training for all staff in ticketing is simply not fit for purpose. There should be a uniform course for staff dealing with tickets be it selling them, checking them or both and most importantly a port of call for on train staff who wish to query the validity of a ticket which would put matters to bed and save needless issues for both the passenger and the staff member. You are not expected to know everything but you should be able to go somewhere when you don't and all the current system does is vilify staff when they try and get it wrong and cause needless stress to the passenger.
What is also being highlighted time and time again is that the appeals procedures for Penalty Fares is also not fit for purpose and once again, there should be a uniform body that is completely clear of any influence from TOC's other than allowing them to state their case in an appeal with people who are experts in the field to ensure that the people who are deserving are made to pay and more importantly those who are not are cleared and reimbursed quickly and without fuss.
It genuinely saddens me that there are so many highlighted issues with ticketing in this country but nobody seems to care to do anything about it.
Perhaps because a lot of people seem to think that buying anything than a straight forward full price ticket is somehow dodgy. And so people deserve all they get for daring to seek out cheaper tickets, without doing anything illegal.
I bet even the general public would think that if they saw the person next to them using some ingenious combo and they'd paid more.
I don't know half of these tricks and the routeing guide makes no sense to me - but I don't have a problem with those who do the extra legwork.
I bet even the general public would think that if they saw the person next to them using some ingenious combo and they'd paid more.
I don't know half of these tricks and the routeing guide makes no sense to me - but I don't have a problem with those who do the extra legwork.
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
You make some very good points.
Ticket/retail training for all staff is absolutely abysmal. Only those staff who choose to take interest on a personal level, well above and beyond what is required of them in a professional capacity, are truly knowledgeable about their tickets. Most staff are quite happy to do their best at work, but shouldn't be expected to have to learn their job during their time off. TOCs need to train staff properly, and ensure that an acceptable level of knowledge is maintained throughout. Your point regarding a 'port of call' is an excellent one, and something most TOCs seem sadly not have picked up on.
Sadly, as you have also said, most TOCs simply don't seem to care all that much. If they did then presumably we wouldn't see all these problems time and again. It is one thing for Guards to be a bit fuzzy, but it becomes very serious when those given the power to report for prosecution, issue penalty fares and in general cause somebody some real problems, are also ill-informed.
I would, however, argue that the BTP should have no need to be trained in the details of ticketing. They have a far wider remit than ticketing issues, which should be for the individual TOCs to deal with. The BTP should become involved only if a law has been broken, is likely to be broken, or if there is a concern regarding somebody's behaviour towards TOC staff. The BTP are not the personal police force of train operators who cannot be bothered to employ or properly train revenue staff, and they tend to very much dislike being regarded as such, with good reason.
Tom C
Member
- Joined
- 4 Jul 2005
- Messages
- 549
Up until recently I would have fully agreed with you but it you look at RJ's experience at St Pancras SE gateline where he was informed he would be arrested for fare evasion when he was completely valid. Lets say he was arrested if he decided not to pay the PF (which was also issued in breach of the Penalty Fare rules) then you are tieing up resources that are actually needed on the track. I am not saying that it should be perhaps as comprehensive as it SHOULD be for railway staff but a fair understanding I think is quite important.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I have been in agreement with your line of reasoning Tom C until this.
It is very definitely not the role of a Police Officer (civil or Railways) to be in full posession of all the facts from both sides of a dispute which would be necessary to make an informed, and hopefully, an appropriate judgement.
That is the job of the Courts (and in more obvious cases, the professionals who can reach agreements out of court).
The role of the BTP must be a neutral and judgement-free process of evidence gathering which is consistent with the detection and prevention of crime. It shouldn't matter if they don't understand, as long as they gather the facts and statements, which others will put into the balance and will consider along with the facts and statements obtained from the Railway personnel.
It's unfortunate that passengers under questionning behave as if they expect a crucial jugement (such as guilt or innocence) is being made there and then, whereas the truth is that the only decision being made is whether to continue gathering evidence . . . or not.
Last edited:
Mark Reckless MP has posted at least two updates on his blog and newsletter to the effect that his constituents appear to have been improperly charged PFs, and that he is investigating: http://markreckless.com/category/hs1/
Southeastern do appear to have been charging PFs in these circumstances for at least three years, as per: http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Medway-...tory-12016632-detail/story.html#axzz2TmbI12iI
I've read the Penalty Fares Regulations, and I do not believe that a PF can be issued merely for being 'off route', as is the case here; furthermore, I consider it reprehensible that Southeastern are using the threat of prosecution to effectively force passengers to pay an invalid PF.
If I were given a PF in these circumstances, I would pay under protest, wait six months, and then sue for the recovery of the difference between the correct excess fare due and the invalid PF extracted under threat of prosecution.
Southeastern do appear to have been charging PFs in these circumstances for at least three years, as per: http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Medway-...tory-12016632-detail/story.html#axzz2TmbI12iI
I've read the Penalty Fares Regulations, and I do not believe that a PF can be issued merely for being 'off route', as is the case here; furthermore, I consider it reprehensible that Southeastern are using the threat of prosecution to effectively force passengers to pay an invalid PF.
If I were given a PF in these circumstances, I would pay under protest, wait six months, and then sue for the recovery of the difference between the correct excess fare due and the invalid PF extracted under threat of prosecution.
- Status