Scotrail not accommodating delays on advance tickets

[williamn]

I am travelling London to Inverurie today on three advance tickets (London to Durham, Durham to Edinburgh and Edinburgh to Inverurie).

My first train from London was terminated at York and the next was 40 mins late so I missed the 11.30 from Edinburgh to Aberdeen I was booked on.

The guard on the next Aberdeen train, the 13.30, wouldn’t accept my ticket as he said it was LNER’s fault. I had to buy a new ticket for £46 which he said I should claim back.

Is this right? I argued it out with him but he insisted,. I’d always understood advance tickets would be valid on the next train. Lady behind was in same situation and had been told by Scotrail staff she could take the train but he also charged her full fare.

 

[Watershed]

The guard is bang out of order. As long as you allow at least the minimum connection time when you change trains, you can split as many times as you like and it still counts as one journey with the resultant protections in the event of missed connections and cancellations.

I would submit a complaint to ScotRail about the guard's behaviour asking for an apology, reimbursement of the tortiously charged additional fare. I'd also ask them to send out a brief reminding staff of the rules.

Sadly this is far from the first time that guards have made up their own rules, and it won't be the last time. Industry staff training on ticketing is, on the whole, very poor as it's simply not seen as important to get right.

 

[yorkie]

I am travelling London to Inverurie today on three advance tickets (London to Durham, Durham to Edinburgh and Edinburgh to Inverurie).

My first train from London was terminated at York and the next was 40 mins late so I missed the 11.30 from Edinburgh to Aberdeen I was booked on.

The guard on the next Aberdeen train, the 13.30, wouldn’t accept my ticket as he said it was LNER’s fault. I had to buy a new ticket for £46 which he said I should claim back.

Is this right? I argued it out with him but he insisted,. I’d always understood advance tickets would be valid on the next train. Lady behind was in se situation and had been told by Scotrail staff she could take the train but he also charged her full fare.

Are you still on the train ? I would tell the lady she is entitled to a full refund from Scotrail. Perhaps even show her this forum .

If it was me, I would be tempted to walk the train to find anyone else affected and encourage everyone to complain and insist on a refund from ScotRail.

I would both issue a refund request and an official complaint into the conduct of the staff.

The rule is:

If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey.

The idea that this Guard thinks it's acceptable to charge, even though by their own admission it can be "claimed back" demonstrates a fundamental lack of appropriate training on the part of ScotRail, as well as insufficient safeguards in place to prevent the mistreatment of customers.

 

[williamn]

I am, unfortunately she’s got off now.

I’m tempted to remonstrate further with the guard showing him the National conditions of carriage but I suspect I wouldn’t get far.

 

[yorkie]

It's worth a try; just be careful because some Guards like to falsely claim you are being 'abusive'. So be very calm and do it in the presence of other passengers.

Also I would ask them questions, e.g. 'what do the rules say about missed connections?'

I would also create a discrete audio recording of the conversation.

 

[williamn]

It's worth a try; just be careful because some Guards like to falsely claim you are being 'abusive'. So be very calm and do it in the presence of other passengers.

Also I would ask them questions, e.g. 'what do the rules say about missed connections?'

I would also record the conversation.

I think the guard has changed on departure from Dundee. Scotrail have confirmed this was incorrect on Twitter too.

 

[furlong]

Scotrail have confirmed this was incorrect on Twitter too.

So ask them if they will follow through with that by speaking to the guard to review all the tickets he sold on board the service, identify the transactions that were wrong and, where they are able to (e.g. if a credit card was used or the passenger may be traceable from a scan), reversing them. I.e. they should be proactive in trying to put right a serious mistake of theirs like this.

 

[David Stewart]

So ask them if they will follow through with that by speaking to the guard to review all the tickets he sold on board the service, identify the transactions that were wrong and, where they are able to (e.g. if a credit card was used or the passenger may be traceable from a scan), reversing them. I.e. they should be proactive in trying to put right a serious mistake of theirs like this.

I am travelling London to Inverurie today on three advance tickets (London to Durham, Durham to Edinburgh and Edinburgh to Inverurie).

My first train from London was terminated at York and the next was 40 mins late so I missed the 11.30 from Edinburgh to Aberdeen I was booked on.

The guard on the next Aberdeen train, the 13.30, wouldn’t accept my ticket as he said it was LNER’s fault. I had to buy a new ticket for £46 which he said I should claim back.

Is this right? I argued it out with him but he insisted,. I’d always understood advance tickets would be valid on the next train. Lady behind was in same situation and had been told by Scotrail staff she could take the train but he also charged her full fare.

ScotRail themselves sell split tickets and on their website they have FAQs about splittickets including this:

Split Train Tickets

Introducing Split Ticketing – your shortcut to savings! Get ready to unlock potential savings on your rail journeys across the UK with our brand-new Split Ticketing feature, available on our website and app.

www.scotrail.co.uk

What do I do if my journey is delayed?
Your split ticket is valid for your entire end-to-end journey – as if it was a direct ticket. So, we will always help you continue your journey during disruption, if you choose to, and if we are able to do so. And if any delay to your arrival at your destination station means you’re eligible for Delay Repay, compensation will be paid based on the costs of the entire combination of split tickets.

 

[robbeech]

Scotrail guards (unless it has changed recently) earn a few percent commission for every ticket sold. In the event of a dispute where a passenger rightly obtains a refund for a ticket, the system isn’t clever enough to deduct this commission from their pay.

Now, I’m in no way suggesting that a guard would see this as an opportunity to make a couple of quid, merely pointing out data you may find interesting.

Of course, blistering incompetence may also be responsible.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

A ticket which is both necessary to buy and refundable after use is a totally new concept. The only perceivable logic is that the guard would earn a commission on the sale with no claw back on the refund. Even if this is not the guard`s motive, he is being incredibly stupid in advertising that he might be on the make.

Where a member of railway staff is making up the rules, it can be a risky business drawing his/ her attention to the actual rules. Some will back down but others may accuse the passenger of aggressive or disruptive behaviour.

 

[Haywain]

I would presume the guard thinks it will be 'claimed back' from LNER. However, I can't help thinking that the motive for selling the ticket is related to commission that they will earn.

 

[yorkie]

I would presume the guard thinks it will be 'claimed back' from LNER. However, I can't help thinking that the motive for selling the ticket is related to commission that they will earn.

Agreed. I have created a new thread here:

Commission should not be paid to Guards who missell tickets

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/scotrail-not-accommodating-delays-on-advance-tickets.277403/ I would like to see the system changed so that commission is not paid to Guards who mis-sell tickets, either due to refusal to accept a valid ticket or due to selling a more expensive ticket than...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Gaelan]

This is quite unusual in my experience - I’ve been on my share of ScotRail trains with “wrong” advances after LNER disruption, and never had more than a “yep, that’s fine”. Hopefully it’s not part of a pattern.

 

[Harpo]

Others on here have touched upon the lives of conductors under pressure to increase their revenue income, and those managing conductors doubtless have similar pressures from above.

I’d not rush in to lay all blame at the guard’s door.

 

[Haywain]

Others on here have touched upon the lives of conductors under pressure to increase their revenue income, and those managing conductors doubtless have similar pressures from above.

I’d not rush in to lay all blame at the guard’s door.

Convenient excuses.

 

[Harpo]

Convenient excuses.

Not excusing, just discouraging judgement.

The wider railway industry has frequently shown a poor understanding of conditions of travel as witnessed on here. The single act discussed here is a minor symptom of that struggle with an overly complex system.

 

[DeverseSam]

Has no-one considered it could have been an LNER-only ticket?

 

[185143]

Has no-one considered it could have been an LNER-only ticket?

Not unless LNER have extended their services to Inverurie!

AFAIK, only one Azuma has ever ran through Inverurie, which was a move to rescue the unit stranded in Aberdeen when the Carmont derailment happened.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Has no-one considered it could have been an LNER-only ticket?

The 1130 Edinburgh->Aberdeen train that the OP was booked on yesterday (Saturday) was a ScotRail service

 

[reb0118]

A ticket which is both necessary to buy and refundable after use is a totally new concept.

Not necessarily, those passengers who are unable to present their railcards are often required to purchase a new ticket, a ticket that may well be refunded under the railcard amnesty scheme.

Although not in this case, as I believe the rejected advance ticket was for another ScotRail service, how does a TOC receive compensation, where ticket acceptance has not been arranged, for carrying a passenger who has been delayed by another TOC?

Personally, I detest TOC only tickets for this very reason. They have the potential to cause major grief to the travelling public - often unnecessary grief. I recently had a lady present a LNER Only ticket on my local train to Perth (it was a 1st class from York to Inverness), when pointing out it was not valid she explained she had been delayed and missed her connection (the last, and in fact only, LNER connection of the day). I offered to excess her ticket to the any permitted (not technically allowed but it would allow her unhindered travel after Perth) for a few pounds (about £3 IIRC) but she refused complaining about the poor 1st Class offering on ScotRail. I left it at that. I had enough to deal with catching the pay when challenged (this was a stopping service) and toilet dwelling fraternity. We later had a bit of a chat and parted on very good terms. I hope that she left with a positive view of rail travel despite her delayed journey. But think on this: she travelled for over 150 miles on my company yet we received no revenue from the passenger. Another company received that revenue, let her down, yet keeps that revenue. Yet the difference between the flexible any permitted and the TOC only was only a few pounds less - no real saving at all - but fraught with risk.

Anyway, we digress: sales commission may or may not be at the heart of this but it's much more likely this is a training matter, ot misinterpretation of the rules. More often than not passengers are allowed to travel with the "wrong" advances without so much as a query as to why. These incidents are thankfully rare.

 

[Watershed]

Personally, I detest TOC only tickets for this very reason. They have the potential to cause major grief to the travelling public - often unnecessary grief. I recently had a lady present a LNER Only ticket on my local train to Perth (it was a 1st class from York to Inverness), when pointing out it was not valid she explained she had been delayed and missed her connection (the last, and in fact only, LNER connection of the day). I offered to excess her ticket to the any permitted (not technically allowed but it would allow her unhindered travel after Perth) for a few pounds (about £3 IIRC) but she refused complaining about the poor 1st Class offering on ScotRail. I left it at that. I had enough to deal with catching the pay when challenged (this was a stopping service) and toilet dwelling fraternity. We later had a bit of a chat and parted on very good terms. I hope that she left with a positive view of rail travel despite her delayed journey. But think on this: she travelled for over 150 miles on my company yet we received no revenue from the passenger. Another company received that revenue, let her down, yet keeps that revenue. Yet the difference between the flexible any permitted and the TOC only was only a few pounds less - no real saving at all - but fraught with risk.

In that particular case - where the passenger would otherwise be stranded - any TOC in a position to assist must do so, as required by NRCoT 28.2.

Given that the lady was able to board a ScotRail service, this strongly suggests ScotRail were in a position to assist, and should have done so by allowing her to travel. She certainly should not have been charged anything extra; if anything, an endorsement confirming the ticket's validity on ScotRail would probably have been the best way of helping her.

This could be argued as being harsh on ScotRail, who receive no revenue from LNER, but I think the idea behind NRCoT 28.2 is that this will balance out over time - though admittedly there are likely to be fewer scenarios where LNER will accommodate stranded ScotRail passengers than vice versa.

At the end of the day I think it just represents the reasonable position as far as the passenger is concerned, and so any internal squabbling about revenue distribution or cross-TOC compensation shouldn't be their concern.

 

[800001]

Not unless LNER have extended their services to Inverurie!

AFAIK, only one Azuma has ever ran through Inverurie, which was a move to rescue the unit stranded in Aberdeen when the Carmont derailment happened.

One also ran Inverness - Aberdeen - Craigentinny, due to flooding on Highland Mainline .

 

[185143]

One also ran Inverness - Aberdeen - Craigentinny, due to flooding on West Highland Mainline .

I doubt that!

But either way, good to know.

 

[800001]

I doubt that!

But either way, good to know.

Corrected oops

 

[yorkie]

Others on here have touched upon the lives of conductors under pressure to increase their revenue income, and those managing conductors doubtless have similar pressures from above.

I’d not rush in to lay all blame at the guard’s door.

The Guard was at fault.

It should be considered a serious matter to do what this Guard did.

Not excusing, just discouraging judgement.

The wider railway industry has frequently shown a poor understanding of conditions of travel as witnessed on here. The single act discussed here is a minor symptom of that struggle with an overly complex system.

If there is any suggestion that the system is in any way too "complex" for a Guard, then the idea that the customers should be charged if in doubt is utterly absurd, if that is what you are suggesting.

If in any doubt, you must NOT charge the customer.

If Scotrail do not treat it as a serious matter, then that is a major failing on their part, but I'm not going to have the seriousness of this be downplayed on this forum.

 

[Harpo]

the idea that the customers should be charged if in doubt is utterly absurd, if that is what you are suggesting.

Never remotely suggested that.

My main points are that the rail industry struggles to comply with the application of its own T&Cs and this is an individual getting it wrong. Everything beyond that is an investigation issue and not answerable or solvable here.

 

[yorkie]

Never remotely suggested that.

In that case, I'd consider revising your wording, because it comes across as downplaying and/or hunting at justifying the Guard's actions to me.

My main points are that the rail industry struggles to comply with the application of its own T&Cs and this is an individual getting it wrong.

As covered by the other thread, there should be sufficient safeguards in place, which are sadly lacking.

Staff in other industries are subject to such checks and are not allowed to get away with making such 'mistakes' that bring their employer into disrepute and break contractual terms.

I would expect to get into big trouble if I acted this way in any job I've done, and rightly so.

Everything beyond that is an investigation issue and not answerable or solvable here.

But we will call it out here for what it is: totally unacceptable without question.

As I said: if in any doubt whatsooever, the customer must not be charged. It's as simple as that.

No ifs, no buts.

 

[Buzby]

IF the Guard’s interpretation was to be seriously challenged, what would be the possible outcome of refusing point-blank to ‘pay again’? Should this have happened to me in a similar situation I would nor be bullyed into making further payment when my ticket was rejected. For me he lost all credibility when suggesting A refund should be requested.

 

[AlterEgo]

IF the Guard’s interpretation was to be seriously challenged, what would be the possible outcome of refusing point-blank to ‘pay again’? Should this have happened to me in a similar situation I would nor be bullyed into making further payment when my ticket was rejected. For me he lost all credibility when suggesting A refund should be requested.

They could ask the passenger to leave at the next station, or get the BTP.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

They could ask the passenger to leave at the next station, or get the BTP

The guard really would be raising the stakes. Is he going to hold the train at an intermediate station waiting perhaps a considerable time for BTP to arrive to eject a passenger holding a valid ticket? The compensation to passengers on this and other trains would be immeasurable, not to mention the publicity.

And, in the particular case of this thread, the guard would risk drawing attention to his commission generating operations.