split ticket problems

[island]

You are correct, but the rules on combining Advances are not well-understood by staff!

 

[calc7]

Indeed it seems CrossCountry's Communications Director, in a recent article in the Guardian, purported the same line.

 

[martinB]

Thank you for the prompt re-assurances. There are two further points that occur to me - the first of which was my reason for posting in this thread.

1) The clerk actually suggested that I should buy a through "Saver" which "would be more expensive, but which would avoid the possibility of having to buy a second ticket". Given this apparent mis-direction (whether intentional or through lack of training, I can't say), is there any realistic prospect of splitting ever being promoted by the ToCs - especially as in this case the "splitting" was recommended by the NR site.

2) What precautions ought I take to demonstrate, if required, to the XC staff that the first train was indeed late at Wolverhampton and hence a later train was needed. An endorsed ticket from the guard on the first service/station staff at Wolverhampton? a photo of the train indicator at Wolverhampton? - or will the XC staff know automatically?

In view of Calc7's comments, I intend carrying the exert from The Manual, the print-out from the NR site and the booking print-outs to show that the tickets were bought at the same time. I realise that I've made a substantially saving by buying Advance tickets but does it really have to be so stressful?!

 

[calc7]

1) The clerk actually suggested that I should buy a through "Saver" which "would be more expensive, but which would avoid the possibility of having to buy a second ticket". Given this apparent mis-direction (whether intentional or through lack of training, I can't say), is there any realistic prospect of splitting ever being promoted by the ToCs - especially as in this case the "splitting" was recommended by the NR site.

In short - no!

2) What precautions ought I take to demonstrate, if required, to the XC staff that the first train was indeed late at Wolverhampton and hence a later train was needed. An endorsed ticket from the guard on the first service/station staff at Wolverhampton? a photo of the train indicator at Wolverhampton? - or will the XC staff know automatically?

If you miss the train and the next one is not for, say, half an hour, then you may as well spend some time going to the booking office and getting the delay validated and written/stamped on the second ticket. There is no obligation to do this, however, so if a suitable onward train is due then you may board that and explain to the guard, who should either believe you or check with his/her control the details of the delay.

In view of Calc7's comments, I intend carrying the exert from The Manual, the print-out from the NR site and the booking print-outs to show that the tickets were bought at the same time. I realise that I've made a substantially saving by buying Advance tickets but does it really have to be so stressful?!

It shouldn't be. Split ticketing (particularly with Advances) is not that widespread and bad training doesn't help people who will be 'bullied' into buying a walk-up ticket to avoid the hassle. Worst case scenario is you get a UPFN or sold a new ticket and people on this forum will assist you in getting the money back.

XC are partly to blame with their bizzare pricing strategies.
MAN-BRI Advance 1st: £50
MAN-SOT Advance 1st: £5, SOT-BRI Advance 1st: £22 (same train!)

Sometimes it works the other way round - Virgin for instance:
CRE-EUS Advance 1st £55
MAN-EUS Advance 1st £32 (same train!)

 

[Flamingo]

100% agree. And if BTP had attended, their objective would have been to get an arrest (and hence favourable statistic) not to interpret a written document.

Wrong, if BTP had attended, their objective would have been to resolve the situation with the minimum of paperwork to themselves (sad but true, in my experience).

I've given up calling them for ticketing issues. To say that they are not interested is an understatement.

 

[bnm]

I've given up calling them for ticketing issues. To say that they are not interested is an understatement.

Once bitten, twice shy perhaps? Too many instances of them being called out to mediate between a passenger who believes his ticket is valid and a staff member who believes it isn't.

If we hear of instances on this forum where clued up members of the public, travelling on valid tickets (two such instances on Virgin this week alone), are being threatened with BTP, then you can bet that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sorry flamingo, but it appears to me that on train staff have cried wolf too often and now BTP are reluctant to attend even when they are genuinely needed.

If you feel you're not getting the support you need from BTP then complain to your bosses. As a passenger I complained about revenue issues on my local line and the lack of support I felt the conductors were getting. That was soon addressed.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I think it is fair to say letters from the public are treated ten times more seriously than a word with the line manager from staff. So if you have the general opinion that letters from the public do nothing, just think how it works for staff.

 

[34D]

I agree with hairyhandedfool. It is evident that a Boundary Zone ticket is not valid without the accompanying valid Travelcard, so it is more accurately described as an "Excess Fare" in the third paragraph than a "ticket" in the first.

The reference to "National Conditions of Carriage, Clause 17" has not been updated to reflect the inclusion of "Rail" in the title in 2000 and the re-numbering of the rules on combination of tickets to Condition 19 in 2006.

Just to propose an alternative rationale, then _if_ ATOC etc wished for boundary zone x tickets to be excesses, they could have been programmed as thus, complete with the requirement to enter the number of the original ticket (as per the current excess procedure).

The fact that they don't, and that they omit the wording "only valid with ticket xyz", leads me to propose that a boundary zone x to dest ticket is valid from any station in zone x+1 even without the accompanying travelcard (but for anyone who has read this paragraph in google, this is only a proposition, for discussion).

Also, if we take a zone 1-4 paper day travelcard (do they still exist?) and a boundary zone 4 to anytown ticket, then I suggest these two tickets as a combination would meet the requirements of the 'zonal tickets' part of NRCOC clause 19.

 

[yorkie]

Also, if we take a zone 1-4 paper day travelcard (do they still exist?) and a boundary zone 4 to anytown ticket, then I suggest these two tickets as a combination would meet the requirements of the 'zonal tickets' part of NRCOC clause 19.

Without getting into the previous issue, yes they do exist, and yes they do meet the requirements.

 

[RJ]

Virgin are not fit to operate a flagship franchise if they cannot properly train their staff about split ticketing. Or how to conduct themselves if they are unsure about a passenger's ticket combination.

No wonder this comment has thus far been ignored. Talk about dramatic. Just because a very niche area of ticketing isn't fully understood by all staff, Virgin are not fit to run a franchise?

The quoted post is a perfect example of why enthusiasts are derised as irritating knowitalls as sadly, it's an attitude that's put into practice in reality.

Also, how do you know that Virgin hasn't provided training on it? Rail staff are human beings who won't necessarily maintain knowledge the full, fine details of all procedures to do with ticketing if not encountered regularly. In a classroom full of people being trained on the same thing, some will grasp/remember things better than others. Not everyone has the same aptitude but it doesn't mean they cannot do their job properly. Let's be realistic, if this type of thing was taught specifically to a group of guards, then not encountered on board for 18 months, how many would remember it fully? No doubt in training, the correct procedure for verification was explained but most people will be aware that almost no-one 100% adopts the "model employee" attributes 100% of the time, unless it's a robot that has been pre-programmed. And even after considering that those things are only as good as those programming it, they still break down.

One complaint I do accept is the bad attitude of some staff, but again, that's very much down to an individual how stubborn they are, not down to their employer. I don't agree with discrimination against people who are not super intelligent robots. Whatever happened to empathy?

100% agree. And if BTP had attended, their objective would have been to get an arrest (and hence favourable statistic) not to interpret a written document.

I'd be interested to know if this comment is based upon actual experience of a similar circumstance without any other aggravating factors or if it's just spurious rhetoric?

 

[MKB]

One thing that gets me is Virgin and London Midland TMs regularly making announcements in the early morning that anyone in possession of an off-peak ticket doesn't have a valid ticket and should get off the train or they will have to buy an Anytime Single.

When my own Off-Peak ticket is checked and I point out to them that their announcement might have unfairly intimidated some passengers with valid Off-Peak tickets into getting off the train, they are never remotely bothered.

 

[Clip]

I'd be interested to know if this comment is based upon actual experience of a similar circumstance without any other aggravating factors or if it's just spurious rhetoric?

It was quite a statement wasnt it. I cant say I have ever seen a member of the BTP arrest someone when one of my guys has called them with an issue surrounding a ticket - normally they call them cos said person is getting arsey and the presence of the BTP ensures he gives his details and calms down. The only time ive seen them arrest someone after being called for a ticket issue is when the fella smacked me in the face.

 

[RJ]

It was quite a statement wasnt it. I cant say I have ever seen a member of the BTP arrest someone when one of my guys has called them with an issue surrounding a ticket - normally they call them cos said person is getting arsey and the presence of the BTP ensures he gives his details and calms down. The only time ive seen them arrest someone after being called for a ticket issue is when the fella smacked me in the face.

Agreed - in my experience, their primary function is to defuse any situation and make sure the member of staff is safe, rather than to get involved in any potential civil disputes. Maybe if there's evidence to reasonably sustain a suspicion that fraud has been committed then they might do an arrest, or there are other aggravating factors like abuse or assault, but we're only talking about a verbal dispute over validity here.

Even with my situation at Liverpool Street where the police were called on me and it went on for almost two hours, they couldn't actually touch me as they couldn't ascertain that I had done anything illegal.

However, I am interested in what experience 34D has to back up what he says as it's relevant to all of us who seriously use creative ticketing.

 

[Tomonthetrain]

What would this ban be?
It's much easier to stop 19(c) non-stop changeovers of tickets, but for splits where the train calls at that station, passengers will happily get off, stand on the platform for a second, and get back on if it means saving money. I don't see what further can be done!

It's giving me ideas - especially on my WVH - LIV trips.

 

[HowMuch?]

No wonder this comment has thus far been ignored. Talk about dramatic. Just because a very niche area of ticketing isn't fully understood by all staff, Virgin are not fit to run a franchise?

This type of attitude is a perfect example of why enthusiasts are derised as irritating knowitalls as sadly, it's an attitude that's put into practice in reality.

I think you are setting up a straw man : Does anyone say that they would expect someone to always be able to recall ALL the details of anything?

In fact many discussions on this forum imply that the regulations confict internally, or are ambiguously worded, often enough to believe that a 'definitive' understanding of these regulations may be impossible. No-one believing this would expect any one person to understand them completely nor any two people always to agree on them.

The rules are created by the industry (defined broadly) not the customers. Is it unreasonable to say that the industry would be hypocritical if their attitude was really that the rules were too complicated for anyone other than a "troublemaking knowitall" to understand, let alone their own staff?

And doubly hypocritical if they were to say at the same time that the rules are so simple that any passenger, however infrequent, should be able to absorb a complete understanding of them during the process of buying a ticket. And that therefore any passenger has only themselves to blame if they find to their horror that they are treated as a criminal if they act at any time as though they didn't know the rules.


I think what people are arguing about is not whether everyone can understand the rules, but, given that doubt is not uncommon, how should staff on trains be expected to treat a passenger when doubt inevitably arises?


I gather (please correct me if I am misrepresenting you) that you believe that if train staff find that they do not understand (or cannot fault) a passenger's explanation as to why they are on that train with that ticket then it is reasonable to deal with the passenger as a possible faredodger.

Perhaps those arguing against this feel that the industry is out of step with other customer-facing businesses. That such companies usually require their staff to treat a customer who cannot be proven to be in the wrong as... right. That responsible companies take care to FIND OUT how well their procedures are working and how well their staff are performing, and do not wash their hands of responsibility for bad "one off" events. And that once any company felt that they were losing money or customers because a small number of staff were unable to understand, explain, and reasonably apply a set of regulations, they would take steps to find better regulations, trainers, or staff - not better customers.

 

[RJ]

I think you are setting up a straw man : Does anyone say that they would expect someone to always be able to recall ALL the details of anything?

In fact many discussions on this forum imply that the regulations confict internally, or are ambiguously worded, often enough to believe that a 'definitive' understanding of these regulations may be impossible. No-one believing this would expect any one person to understand them completely nor any two people always to agree on them.

The rules are created by the industry (defined broadly) not the customers. Is it unreasonable to say that the industry would be hypocritical if their attitude was really that the rules were too complicated for anyone other than a "troublemaking knowitall" to understand, let alone their own staff?

And doubly hypocritical if they were to say at the same time that the rules are so simple that any passenger, however infrequent, should be able to absorb a complete understanding of them during the process of buying a ticket. And that therefore any passenger has only themselves to blame if they find to their horror that they are treated as a criminal if they act at any time as though they didn't know the rules.


I think what people are arguing about is not whether everyone can understand the rules, but, given that doubt is not uncommon, how should staff on trains be expected to treat a passenger when doubt inevitably arises?


I gather (please correct me if I am misrepresenting you) that you believe that if train staff find that they do not understand (or cannot fault) a passenger's explanation as to why they are on that train with that ticket then it is reasonable to deal with the passenger as a possible faredodger.

Perhaps those arguing against this feel that the industry is out of step with other customer-facing businesses. That such companies usually require their staff to treat a customer who cannot be proven to be in the wrong as... right. That responsible companies take care to FIND OUT how well their procedures are working and how well their staff are performing, and do not wash their hands of responsibility for bad "one off" events. And that once any company felt that they were losing money or customers because a small number of staff were unable to understand, explain, and reasonably apply a set of regulations, they would take steps to find better regulations, trainers, or staff - not better customers.

So you agree that a company is unfit to run a franchise because one numpty TM didn't know the rules and took the wrong attitude towards verifying them? I don't see how changing the colour of one's uniform will alter the personality trait of a stubborn person. On training courses, the right things are covered and idyllic attitudinal training does take place, but you can't change the fact that a leopard has spots. Teaching pro-customer service skills isn't going to change anyone's personality in the long term. Many people can feign having such skills temporarily in order to get the job, as everyone needs to find a means to put food on the table.

My point is that the railway company cannot be held responsible for an individual's personality traits. The company can provide limitless training but at the end of the day, humans will forget minute details and will lapse from time to time with following the proper procedure, especially if they're naturally stubborn and hot headed. No, it's not an ideal situation and I do agree with your idealistic views. However, in reality, we do need deal with the fact that making use of obscure T&Cs is going to cause trouble from time to time and make provisions to deal with that. No, it wouldn't happen in an ideal world, but yes, it does happen and it's best to be prepared.

 

[IanXC]

So you agree that a company is unfit to run a franchise because one numpty TM didn't know the rules and took the wrong attitude towards verifying them? I don't see how changing the colour of one's uniform will alter the personality trait of a stubborn person.

My point is that the railway company cannot be held responsible for an individual's personality traits. The company can provide limitless training but at the end of the day, humans will forget minute details and will lapse from time to time with following the proper procedure, especially if they're naturally stubborn and hot headed.

I disagree. Any company should take responsibility for the actions of its staff, if an employee's personality traits are resulting in them not delivering the service the company requires them to deliver then this should be addressed via Performance Management. Ultimately if the employee does not bring their behaviour into line with the company's expectation then the company should consider the employee's dismissal.

If an operator is not conducting effective performance management then thats probably not grounds for them not to be suitable to operate a franchise. However I would question whether broader difficulties resulting from this lack of management would cause far wider damage to the business.

 

[island]

One thing that gets me is Virgin and London Midland TMs regularly making announcements in the early morning that anyone in possession of an off-peak ticket doesn't have a valid ticket and should get off the train or they will have to buy an Anytime Single.

When my own Off-Peak ticket is checked and I point out to them that their announcement might have unfairly intimidated some passengers with valid Off-Peak tickets into getting off the train, they are never remotely bothered.

Not to mention that using an invalid off-peak ticket means an excess, not a new ticket!

 

[RJ]

I disagree. Any company should take responsibility for the actions of its staff, if an employee's personality traits are resulting in them not delivering the service the company requires them to deliver then this should be addressed via Performance Management. Ultimately if the employee does not bring their behaviour into line with the company's expectation then the company should consider the employee's dismissal.

If an operator is not conducting effective performance management then thats probably not grounds for them not to be suitable to operate a franchise. However I would question whether broader difficulties resulting from this lack of management would cause far wider damage to the business.

I have no doubt that Virgin has internal discipline, review and appraisal processes and that they follow up each and every individual complaint. While I agree that these are fundamental elements of any customer facing business, that's not what was appropriated by CompactDstrxion! Unless CompactDstrxion is a Virgin TM who has been through the training process, then any comments with regards to what has and hasn't been covered in their training are at the very best, uninformed and inaccurate. As I say, humans beings are subject to err. And if CompactDstrxion is a Virgin TM, nothing like biting the hand that feeds you, being so harshly critical in the public domain
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not to mention that using an invalid off-peak ticket means an excess, not a new ticket!

Not sure which part of the London Midland network was being referred to, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of erroneously used Off Peak tickets in the morning peak are going to be the return portions of an OPR or SVR. Many flows where SVRs are available don't have a corresponding SOR and so the "excess fare" is automatically going to be a new ticket. It'd be quite tricky for the Average Joe to obtain an invalid off peak ticket in the morning peak, if it's with the intent of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception then I'm certain an excess fare would most certainly not be appropriate

To be fair, it's an observation that could quite easily be taken out of context.

 

[island]

Not sure which part of the London Midland network was being referred to, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of erroneously used Off Peak tickets in the morning peak are going to be the return portions of an OPR or SVR. Many flows where SVRs are available don't have a corresponding SOR and so the "excess fare" is automatically going to be a new ticket.

No it's not. An SVR used at an invalid time with no SOR for the flow is to be excessed to double the SDS (discounted where applicable, or sell a new undiscounted SDS where cheaper). I believe this is in the EC excess instructions.

 

[RJ]

No it's not. An SVR used at an invalid time with no SOR for the flow is to be excessed to double the SDS (discounted where applicable, or sell a new undiscounted SDS where cheaper). I believe this is in the EC excess instructions.

We're not dealing with EC here and certainly not an official universal instruction.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Lots of passion on this debate, but can I draw peoples attention to a few things:

1) the Virgin TM was clearly in the wrong. There is no fifth column or ulterior purpose in either Virgin Trains or ATOC or anyone else pushing these sorts of errors. It shouldn't have happened and is as frustrating to those in the industry who know the rules as to those outside it.

2) "Any Reasonable" was replaced by "Any Permitted" by British Rail at the behest of the Government in the run up to privatisation. The TOCs have no choice but to comply with it. Please don't exacerbate the rosy view of good old BR/nasty TOCs - let's stick to facts

3) The current foul-up with split ticketing is caused by the Government's requirement that every through journey must be through priced by a specific TOC, whilst preventing them discussing these prices with other TOCs who run services and set fares on part of the route because it contravenes competition legislation.

4) None of the industry systems are able to or designed to cope with quoting split fares, it is not some evil conspiracy.

5) Sorting the situation out properly requires the Government and DfT to rethink what they want and require of TOCs in regards to fares and fares regulation. In true Sir Humphrey style they have embarked on a Fares and Ticketing review to put off making any decisions for as long as possible.

6) in the meantime, everyone will just have to muddle along.

BTW in the light of the 'Fares & Ticketing Review' there will be no changes to the NRCoC with regard to split ticketing for the forseeable future (or probably forever, as it is now such a political hot potato)

 

[yorkie]

Lots of passion on this debate, but can I draw peoples attention to a few things:

1) the Virgin TM was clearly in the wrong. There is no fifth column or ulterior purpose in either Virgin Trains or ATOC or anyone else pushing these sorts of errors. It shouldn't have happened and is as frustrating to those in the industry who know the rules as to those outside it.

Agreed and I am sure Virgin Customer Services will resolve this matter

2) "Any Reasonable" was replaced by "Any Permitted" by British Rail at the behest of the Government in the run up to privatisation. The TOCs have no choice but to comply with it. Please don't exacerbate the rosy view of good old BR/nasty TOCs - let's stick to facts

Some TOC employees deny this, but you are right!

I find a good approach when challenged is to politely, but assertively, ask some reasonable questions such as:

Q1: Do you comply with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage?
(If "No", refer to back of ticket )
Q2: What does Condition 13/19 say regarding the route I may take/using a combination of tickets? (delete as appropriate, depending on the issue)

​

I once asked the 2nd question (I felt there was no need for the first) of a member of EMT staff who had just told someone they needed to step off/on a train when splitting tickets. When she looked it up, I asked if there was anything about stepping off/on and she confirmed there wasn't. I then thanked her and that was that. I am sure that she will give the correct advice in future She was not trying to mislead the previous customer but had obviously heard it from someone else and was happy to look it up when asked.

3) The current foul-up with split ticketing is caused by the Government's requirement that every through journey must be through priced by a specific TOC, whilst preventing them discussing these prices with other TOCs who run services and set fares on part of the route because it contravenes competition legislation.

Well, that causes anomalies for sure. While such anomalies can be amusing and/or daft, ultimately you're right, the system is at fault. And any changes to the system may not benefit customers so I am not keen for any change unless certain guarantees are made. But I know such guarantees would not be forthcoming.

4) None of the industry systems are able to or designed to cope with quoting split fares, it is not some evil conspiracy.

Agreed. But, presumably, the industry will have no concerns if someone does create a system that is designed to quote for such split fares, providing it only suggests valid tickets? (I note that there are plans for the data to be made 'open' but the DfT has concerns to ensure that the data is used appropriately).

5) Sorting the situation out properly requires the Government and DfT to rethink what they want and require of TOCs in regards to fares and fares regulation. In true Sir Humphrey style they have embarked on a Fares and Ticketing review to put off making any decisions for as long as possible.

It is probably best that the system doesn't change much, because any new system is unlikely to result in anything other than fare rises, given the policies that have been in place under both the previous Labour Government and also the current Government.

6) in the meantime, everyone will just have to muddle along.

I have no issue with this, but some more mystery shopping that deals with some of these issues could help to ensure that customers are correctly accepted when using routes & combinations that are permitted but may look a little 'odd'.

BTW in the light of the 'Fares & Ticketing Review' there will be no changes to the NRCoC with regard to split ticketing for the forseeable future (or probably forever, as it is now such a political hot potato)

That's excellent

 

[WelshBluebird]

My point is that the railway company cannot be held responsible for an individual's personality traits.

But they ARE responsible for that member of staffs actions during the course of doing their job.
If a member of staff makes mistakes, does not know the rules, and especially claims someones ticket is not valid (when it defiantly is valid) and threatens the person with a call to the police, then I do think the company need to take a good hard look at that member of staff and decide if they need retraining or whatever.

And as has been said, it seems a bit hypocritical for the railways to essentially say that the fares system is so complex that TM's can't know everything (or may make mistakes) yet at the same time say that if you are a passenger who do not know all the rules or who makes a mistake then you can be hit with either a very expensive charge, or prosecuted.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Agreed. But, presumably, the industry will have no concerns if someone does create a system that is designed to quote for such split fares, providing it only suggests valid tickets? (I note that there are plans for the data to be made 'open' but the DfT has concerns to ensure that the data is used appropriately).

The thing is, split ticketing affects different TOCs very differently so there is no industry consensus on it. Some TOCs actually benefit because of the way revenue is allocated. I think it is fair to say that a lot of people are waiting to see what happens when a 3rd party retailer starts actively promoting split ticket offers. Given the lack of consensus amongst operators and the fence-sitting by the DfT it will be interesting to see the results!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

While thinking logically from this point:

5) Sorting the situation out properly requires the Government and DfT to rethink what they want and require of TOCs in regards to fares and fares regulation. In true Sir Humphrey style they have embarked on a Fares and Ticketing review to put off making any decisions for as long as possible.

There is more that one conclusion to be drawn than this one:

6) in the meantime, everyone will just have to muddle along.

I'm sure that remark is made with tongue in cheek, but it is also a reasonable assessment of just how little is likely to change in the meantime (while we wait for a national electronic ticketing / smart-card system).

But its not the only outcome that's possible. With effective and responsive Regulation, the industry could do a lot better than 'muddle along'. It could, for example, provide front line training, investment in customer service that raises the profile of Rail travel from something that millions of people* put up with to something people are proud of.

Other consumer-facing privatised industries have managed!

*people: passengers and staff alike.

 

[Clip]

But its not the only outcome that's possible. With effective and responsive Regulation, the industry could do a lot better than 'muddle along'. It could, for example, provide front line training, investment in customer service that raises the profile of Rail travel from something that millions of people* put up with to something people are proud of.

Other consumer-facing privatised industries have managed!

*people: passengers and staff alike.

Indeed Dave. It would be great if TOCs had regular forums with groups of their frontline staff to ensure that they all are fully aware of everythign that their job entails - especially guards(no offence to those on here but its part of the original OP)

You know like get a group together and throw different ticketing scenarios at them for them to decide what is right and what route is right and so on. This would engage lively discussion and would highlight those who may have forgotten their training and so on and so forth. This would also enable their colleagues to coach those that cant remember/forgotten certain things within their role as we all do from time to time.

Its a very hard job that guards/Train managers do and with their other duties to coincide something that is different from the same old day to day actions may get lost by the wayside. It happens. People are human. I just wish some people in this thread would recognise that.

 

[34D]

I'd be interested to know if this comment is based upon actual experience of a similar circumstance without any other aggravating factors or if it's just spurious rhetoric?

Based on the police's attitude towards more than one passenger, in the past.

Edit-just to point out that this (and my previous comment) didn't relate specifically to ticket irregularities