Refund on PF - AS Rejected even though I found the ticket later

[ian959]

Whilst not directly related to the topic, the problem is of course that the words "will" and "should" are often used incorrectly nowadays... the number of times I have to correct people who do not seem to know the difference, so it is quite feasible that (revenue) staff are just falling back to their own inadequate education (or lack of proper understanding if English is their second language).

 

[furlong]

I've always considered that if an inspector is sure something will be overturned on appeal, then what's the point of commencing the TIR/PF in the first place?

This case was allegedly conditional - will be refunded if satisfactory proof of purchase is provided within a certain number of days. (Whatever was agreed should have been written on the notice IMHO to avoid disputes like this one.)

 

[rs101]

Which is precisely why the RPI gave you the impression that you might be able to successfully appeal. He didn't want the grief, and you would have been here posting about how to avoid going to court.

End of the day you didn't have a ticket. Not the railway's problem.

So the RPI can say what he likes and there's no way of challenging that at all? To save himself some grief, he can happily lie to passengers without worrying about the consequences.

 

[455driver]

I may have been more unreasonable with the inspector at the time had he told me at the time there were no grounds for the PF to be refunded.

So the error is yours and you think you have the right to be unreasonable to the RPI, that probably says more about you than it does the RPI!

Of course if you had kept your ticket safe in the first place! :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So the RPI can say what he likes and there's no way of challenging that at all? To save himself some grief, he can happily lie to passengers without worrying about the consequences.

Well as the OP has stated he would have been 'unreasonable' to the RPI (IE be a complete tw@) I can understand why the RPI would want to avoid the situation!

Do you think the OP being unreasonable to the RPI would be acceptable?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Flamingo, your correct - I had no evidence to prove it was a genuine mistake with me. The inspector was reasonable however having now evidenced the ticket and the bank statement with the ticket purchase on it (as instructed to AS) - I'm told I have no grounds for appeal. Just seems unreasonable to have paid £150 for a £50 ticket - and I may have been more unreasonable with the inspector at the time had he told me at the time there were no grounds for the PF to be refunded. (or just not wasted more time dealing with the AS afterwards).

You were under no obligation to pay the PF, you could just as easily had your day in Court!

 

[hounddog]

Well as the OP has stated he would have been 'unreasonable' to the RPI (IE be a complete tw@) I can understand why the RPI would want to avoid the situation!

Do you think the OP being unreasonable to the RPI would be acceptable?

A passenger being unreasonable doesn't absolve an RPI from doing his job correctly.

 

[455driver]

A passenger being unreasonable doesn't absolve an RPI from doing his job correctly.

So in other words you do think it acceptable! :roll:
#
Maybe the RPI should have gone for a byelaw 18 prosecution then, it would be a slam dunk case!

 

[hounddog]

So in other words you do think it acceptable! :roll:
#
Maybe the RPI should have gone for a byelaw 18 prosecution then, it would be a slam dunk case!

No I didn't say that. And you know it.

 

[Flamingo]

A passenger being unreasonable doesn't absolve an RPI from doing his job correctly.

The RPI dd do his job correctly. He gave the passenger a reasonable chance to find the ticket, and when the passenger was unable to do so, he issued a PF, correctly filled in. He advised the passenger of his right to appeal the PF. What else should the RPI have done?

 

[rs101]

The RPI dd do his job correctly. He gave the passenger a reasonable chance to find the ticket, and when the passenger was unable to do so, he issued a PF, correctly filled in. He advised the passenger of his right to appeal the PF. What else should the RPI have done?

If we've been told the true information by the OP, the RPI didn't do his job correctly.
The RPI should have advised that if the original ticket was sent in, there was a chance of the PF being cancelled - he didn't, rather he said it WOULD be cancelled. Big difference.

Who knows - perhaps if the OP had known the PF wouldn't definitely be cancelled, he'd have spent another 5 minutes going through his possessions and found the ticket in the book mentioned.

 

[najaB]

The RPI should have advised that if the original ticket was sent in, there was a chance of the PF being cancelled - he didn't, rather he said it WOULD be cancelled. Big difference.

We only have the OP's side of the story, and that is based on what they heard which isn't necessarily what was said.

 

[philthetube]

If I was an RPI, regardless of the truth, with an angry passenger I would lie if I thought it would prevent me from being thumped.

There is no difference, in my eyes, between that and a guard not pursuing a fare on the train. Both should be expected to take reasonable steps to avoid being put at risk.

 

[Flamingo]

If we've been told the true information by the OP, the RPI didn't do his job correctly.
The RPI should have advised that if the original ticket was sent in, there was a chance of the PF being cancelled - he didn't, rather he said it WOULD be cancelled. Big difference.

Who knows - perhaps if the OP had known the PF wouldn't definitely be cancelled, he'd have spent another 5 minutes going through his possessions and found the ticket in the book mentioned.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. We can do "woulda, shoulda, coulda" all night, all we can go on is what actually happened.

This was that the OP could not find their ticket after being given an opportunity to find it, the RPI decided that a PF was the appropriate action, the OP accepted the PF, they were advised on their right to appeal. The RPI had no way of knowing that the OP would find (or even had) the ticket, that the OP would appeal, and that the appeal would be rejected.

So blaming the whole scenario on the RPI is a bit disingenuous, to say the least.

 

[rs101]

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. We can do "woulda, shoulda, coulda" all night, all we can go on is what actually happened.

This was that the OP could not find their ticket after being given an opportunity to find it, the RPI decided that a PF was the appropriate action, the OP accepted the PF, they were advised on their right to appeal. The RPI had no way of knowing that the OP would find (or even had) the ticket, that the OP would appeal, and that the appeal would be rejected.

So blaming the whole scenario on the RPI is a bit disingenuous, to say the least.

Assuming we believe the OP, the RPI went far beyond advising on the right to appeal and stated the appeal would be successful if the ticket could be found. Or are some posters suggesting the OP made up that part of their story?

I also struggle to understand that anyone can think it's acceptable for the RPI to lie to a customer, even if there's a perceived risk of violence (unlikely to occur on the platforms at Liverpool Street given the high level of both rail and police personnel on duty there at present). Surely RPIs have basic training in dealing with that sort of situation.

 

[najaB]

Or are some posters suggesting the OP made up that part of their story?

I have no doubt that the OP is telling us what he remembers about the events. That isn't to say that he's telling us what actually happened.

I also struggle to understand that anyone can think it's acceptable for the RPI to lie to a customer, even if there's a perceived risk of violence (unlikely to occur on the platforms at Liverpool Street given the high level of both rail and police personnel on duty there at present). Surely RPIs have basic training in dealing with that sort of situation.

I saw someone getting the s**t kicked out of them at Liverpool Street a few months back.

And RPI's training in quite simple: don't get into a physical confrontation as it only takes seconds for someone to pull a blade.

 

[CheesyChips]

I also struggle to understand that anyone can think it's acceptable for the RPI to lie to a customer, even if there's a perceived risk of violence (unlikely to occur on the platforms at Liverpool Street given the high level of both rail and police personnel on duty there at present). Surely RPIs have basic training in dealing with that sort of situation.

Well some of the numpties that seem to become RPIs have the communication skills of a banana. They have no way of dealing with a situation other than just lying to keep people happy.

It's as if they're only told it's a confrontational role at the end of their 12 minute training course once they've finally got the hi-vis on.

 

[EssexCommuter]

Revenue Protection on AGA is dreadful. They pay no attention on the trains to expired tickets (I always have valid tickets, sometimes I forget to switch them but they don't notice).

I've also noticed that on intercity trains, where people can buy tickets on the trains, they've stopped checking tickets now, at least when I've been on board.

The people on the barriers at Liverpool St are rude and offer no assistance at all.

The experience of this person is in huge contrast to my experience with Virgin. Booked advance tickets to Manchester for two people. Collected tickets from the machine at Liverpool Street, several months before. For some reason, I didn't check them properly - saw 4 'tickets' and thought all ok, despite being a seasoned rail traveller. Got to Manchester fine, but on checking the tickets before we came back, I realised I had one ticket and one receipt. Bought a full price single back and emailed Virgin. I was reimbursed within 3 days.

 

[306024]

I've also noticed that on intercity trains, where people can buy tickets on the trains, they've stopped checking tickets now, at least when I've been on board.

No they haven't. Try working a busy Norwich train, often with relatively frequent stops. The conductors can't be everywhere.