Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Which may well be the cause of many of them being less than helpful.
Bad all round, really
-
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!
Revenue protection took my details - Unstaffed station
- Thread starter johntea
- Start date
- Status
Which may well be the cause of many of them being less than helpful.
Bad all round, really
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
This doesn't sound like a fares matter to me. Doesn't the ORR have a duty to investigate potential breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations?
Possibly not.
Maybe if you started up a campaign through your forum and using rail media outlets along with social media and other media outlets you may actually enforce a change rather than keep asking about it to forum members on here.
Its the only way I can see them ever actually changing the way they work along with getting a proper version of passenger focus.
Maybe if you started up a campaign through your forum and using rail media outlets along with social media and other media outlets you may actually enforce a change rather than keep asking about it to forum members on here.
Its the only way I can see them ever actually changing the way they work along with getting a proper version of passenger focus.
If "technically" the passenger is still expected to purchase their ticket at the interchange station despite being delayed on their incoming service, missing their connection and suffering an hour+ delay as a result, my question would be: Who pays for the hour+ delay to the passenger, in that case, which "technically" has been caused by the late running of the incoming service (even if the delay causing the missed connection was only a few minutes)?
Last edited:
I think we all "technically" know the answer to that one!
TPE will say the customer should bear the delay, whereas the customer will say it's TPE's fault for not letting them buy onboard the next service.
That said, TPE's customer services said that buying onboard in these circumstances "shouldn't be a problem" (link).
Don't think it's TPEs fault for being on time, and wouldn't be my angle.I think we all "technically" know the answer to that one!
TPE will say the customer should bear the delay, whereas the customer will say it's TPE's fault for not letting them buy onboard the next service.
That said, TPE's customer services said that buying onboard in these circumstances "shouldn't be a problem" (link).
Taking what has been said about what "technically" should have happened (which I would read as a ticking off), my angle would be that the TOC with the initial late running train is the cause (as this would be the case were the person to miss a connection normally due to a late running incoming connection). Do passenger focus accept that a passenger should always be compensated under that company's/NR delay repay rules in these circumstances?
Additionally, would they also like to explain the implications of their stance for commuters from stations with no ticket purchasing facilities, where these passengers need to connect on to services within tight timescales, in order to reliably turn up to work each day? They have a "choice" of extending their journey by perhaps 2 hours a day (1 hour each way), or risking being challenged over not having a valid ticket and not having purchased on at the first "available" opportunity, or finding some other means to get to work. I assume for most normal people being an hour late on regular occasion equals the sack and so taking your chances on always having enough time to get off and buy a ticket is not an option.
The position is not common sense, and is in my view unjust. Never mind "shouldn't be a problem", how about making sure it "won't be a problem"?
Last edited:
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
How about them buying a season ticket?
If Mr Passenger boards at an unstaffed station, changing with 5 minutes to spare at a staffed station, and alights at an unstaffed station, how on earth are they supposed to get hold of a monthly or longer without being delayed?
A 7ds could be sold on board I suppose, but maybe it's time guards got the power to sell proper seasons
The OP's situation says that they do have a season ticket, the type they have to use doesn't cover their entire journey.
There are a range of legitimate reasons as to why a regular traveller might not have a season ticket to cover their journey (or all of their journey), and what's the difference between what you've suggested there and the guard who tried to insist on the buying of the ticket that the guard wanted the passenger to have rather than the ticket the passenger actually needed? I wonder, would you have the nerve to say what you just did to a passenger's face?
Your "answer" doesn't answer anything, it again just dumps the needs of the passenger to the bottom of the pile. It's a passenger carrying railway, so there's an obvious incompatibility there.
Last edited:
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,242
I think Flamingo was responding to this:
That was definitely not a reference to the OP, but a completely different situation that you cited where a season ticket would be appropriate.
Their comment was below mine so yes I did assume it was an answer to me.
How do you know a season ticket would be appropriate? People's journey choices can be many and varied. The OP themselves has a journey where only part of it is covered by a season ticket. And just because you deem a season ticket to be "appropriate" doesn't mean that a passenger themselves would. Perhaps they can't afford a lump sum, perhaps they only travel on certain days, or to certain places on certain days, or perhaps they might just want to exercise their right to make their own purchasing decisions. I don't think a "well get a season ticket then" type response is OK when they face what I think are completely un-necessary obstacles in their use of the railway network. Would you dare say it to a passenger's face?
If anyone thinks it OK that a passenger from an unstaffed station should be faced with a choice of either giving up their right to access the normal range of tickets or facing a massive potential delay to their journey in order to gain such access to those tickets, I think they might want to consider a career in freight movement. As I say, it's a passenger-carrying railway. I don't think it's much to expect that the passenger's efficient and hassle-free carriage comes first.
How do you know a season ticket would be appropriate? People's journey choices can be many and varied. The OP themselves has a journey where only part of it is covered by a season ticket. And just because you deem a season ticket to be "appropriate" doesn't mean that a passenger themselves would. Perhaps they can't afford a lump sum, perhaps they only travel on certain days, or to certain places on certain days, or perhaps they might just want to exercise their right to make their own purchasing decisions. I don't think a "well get a season ticket then" type response is OK when they face what I think are completely un-necessary obstacles in their use of the railway network. Would you dare say it to a passenger's face?
If anyone thinks it OK that a passenger from an unstaffed station should be faced with a choice of either giving up their right to access the normal range of tickets or facing a massive potential delay to their journey in order to gain such access to those tickets, I think they might want to consider a career in freight movement. As I say, it's a passenger-carrying railway. I don't think it's much to expect that the passenger's efficient and hassle-free carriage comes first.
Last edited:
Elecman
Established Member
Write to the Minister of State pointing out TPEs non observance of the NCoCs and remind him of his statutory duties to ensure compliance with Industry conditions through his subordinates at DaFT and ORR
In Flamingo's scenario the passenger was making the same journey to get to work every day. This is the kind of person for whom a season tickets is a perfect match.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,242
FFS. I can see that you are determined to be right, but YOU created a scenario, and now claim it is something different. A person who is not the OP and who makes the same journey to and from work every day is likely to benefit from a season ticket. And why wouldn't I say it to the passenger's face? I am interested in getting them the best value, and one which avoids them unnecessary inconvenience in making their journey. But this is not the case for the OP, it is the case (or appears to be from the limited information given) for the theoretical passenger in your imaginary scenario, as referenced in my previous reply when I stated "That was definitely not a reference to the OP".
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
you were right, it was an answer to you. I'm not sure why I bothered :roll:
I've made suggestions to passengers that they may be better off purchasing a season ticket for their regular commute.
I've said it to their faces too!
I think they have all thanked me even when politely declining the offer.
Justice for the Pink One!!
I've said it to their faces too!
I think they have all thanked me even when politely declining the offer.
Justice for the Pink One!!
There's a world of difference between tipping a passenger that they might save money if they travel regularly, versus the above as a response to my perfectly valid observations.
Last edited:
323235
Established Member
Surely in this case if you boarded the train at Castleford where there was no opportunity to buy ticket(s) to cover the entire duration of your journey, the guard was unavailable, the Northern service arrived late and because Northern had not given you an opportunity to purchase your ticket then a claim for arriving an hour late should go to Northern IF you did delay your journey to buy a ticket, which I don't believe anyone should providing they allowed the minimum connection time when planning their journey (even if late running subsequently eroded this).
The last thirty or so posts on this thread were previously located here. They have been moved to this thread as there was some confusion about what was being discussed on that thread. This thread should be used for discussion of johntea's issue with TPE around Leeds.
The law specifically states the first opportunity to pay should be used, not the most convenient, therefore the minimum interchange time is irrelevant if the first opportunity to purchase a valid ticket for the journey is at the connection point, even if that means a 'delay' after purchasing said ticket to catch the next stage of the journey.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Does it? I have a copy of the Judgement in Corbyn in my hand, and I can't say it is at all 'specific' in respect of a first opportunity. It is 'specific' in refusing to accept that an intention to avoid payment need be a "permanent" intention, but there is something of a gulf between 'first opportunity' and 'not a permanent intention'.
There are several elements to Corbyn's prosecution for 46 occasions in which he underpaid his fare but the "first opportunity" criterion is not specified explicitly in any of the authorities.
Please could you provide an appropriate source for this assertion?
My apologies, having spoken from memory and not checked the facts firstly.
The conditions of carriage of all operators AFAIAA state the 1st opportunity must be used, it was certainly my TOCs argument in such cases where prosecution was considered or actually proceed to that a connecting point was then the 1st opportunity if it offered ticket issuing facilities such as this case.
I would maintain that it is still perfectly normal for the interchange point to be considered the 1st opportunity, whether a lawyer on the day of court could successfully argue this was unreasonable due to connections is another matter.
My toc ICGW now FGW.
The conditions of carriage of all operators AFAIAA state the 1st opportunity must be used, it was certainly my TOCs argument in such cases where prosecution was considered or actually proceed to that a connecting point was then the 1st opportunity if it offered ticket issuing facilities such as this case.
I would maintain that it is still perfectly normal for the interchange point to be considered the 1st opportunity, whether a lawyer on the day of court could successfully argue this was unreasonable due to connections is another matter.
My toc ICGW now FGW.
Yes, I think it is reasonable to treat the interchange station as an opportunity to purchase in cases with frequent service, for example changing through Piccadilly for Stockport.
But for infrequent services, such as changing at Piccadilly for Middlewood (1 per 2 hours) is it honestly reasonable for the passenger to miss their train because of inadequate purchasing facilities offered by the toc?
CockneySparrow
Member
Still with the size of Leeds and how busy it is the OP probably wouldn't be able to buy a ticket within 10 minutes
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
In broad terms, I agree with this assessment:
It will be a matter of fact whether or not there are ticket selling facilities which are adequate, accessible and functioning appropriately for the passenger's journeys, abilities and payments. To identify an alleged failure or inadequacy by a Company is immaterial to determining that fact.
but I can't agree that it is helpful to add those last few words on the end.
It will be a matter of fact whether or not there are ticket selling facilities which are adequate, accessible and functioning appropriately for the passenger's journeys, abilities and payments. To identify an alleged failure or inadequacy by a Company is immaterial to determining that fact.
DaleCooper
Established Member
I'm not sure I understand that last sentence. How can the fact that facilities are adequate be determined without attempting to identify any possible inadequacy?
I hope I've made myself clear, that was a bit tricky to put into words.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
The distinction I was trying to make was between:
- a lack of ticket selling facilities on the passenger's journey. (The matter of fact). If true it might be seen as an inadequacy of facilities.
- attributing blame to the franchisee. ( An opinion of cause which is not necessary to argue if the fact is true). If it was argued that the Company's arrangements are inadequate then a challenge, depending on the grounds of that challenge, would not necessarily show the ticket selling facilities to be adequate.
- a lack of ticket selling facilities on the passenger's journey. (The matter of fact). If true it might be seen as an inadequacy of facilities.
- attributing blame to the franchisee. ( An opinion of cause which is not necessary to argue if the fact is true). If it was argued that the Company's arrangements are inadequate then a challenge, depending on the grounds of that challenge, would not necessarily show the ticket selling facilities to be adequate.
- Status