Stansted Airport station queues and railcard app not working

[All Line Rover]

I am at Stansted Airport, about to board a flight.

I took the Stansted Express train from Liverpool St.

Everything was fine, until I arrived at Stansted Airport station. There was an enormous (200+) queue of people waiting to exit the station and only two staff members manually checking tickets.

When I eventually reached the front of the queue (at which point I was about to ask the staff member, who I shall call "X", "What's the point of having a fast service from London if I need to wait twenty minutes to exit the station?"), X scans my ticket and immediately asks to see my railcard. I open the railcard app, it's not working (the first I've heard of this problem, but it is well documented in another thread on this forum, having apparently existed for at least the past two days) and I show X the faulty app.

Instead of saying "Oh, I'm very sorry to see that our systems are not fully working today. Thank you anyway. Have a nice day.", X says "You will need to speak to my colleague in the corner". This colleague has a queue of two, maybe more, hapless tourists. They will take some time to be helped. I hold a valid e-ticket, purchased on a TOC app that morning, and a valid railcard.

My response is "I have a flight to board in one hour and have been waiting long enough in this queue. I'm certainly not waiting any longer." I walk past and proceed up the escalator into the airport. X runs after me! X grabs my rucksack (a small flight bag with shoulder straps) and tries to drag me back down the escalator. When it became clear that X had no chance of moving me anywhere (I'm not sure what X was thinking; I'm not of a build that the average person can push around), X lets go. I proceed up the escalator into the airport. I am currently waiting for my flight in the departure lounge, having passed security in a delightfully seamless experience, with polite staff, that took less than five minutes!

I am shocked and angry at how I was treated by the railway this morning. No airline, low-cost or otherwise, would dare to treat a paying customer in this way (United Airlines excepted). Fortunately X did not damage my rucksack, otherwise I would be in real difficulty right now in getting through security and boarding a flight with only one, damaged, flight bag.

Is this behaviour and treatment of customers endemic in the British rail industry? If I make a complaint, what redress and/or action should I expect, if any?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is disgraceful, as are the Railcard problems themselves.

However I would not make a complaint in this instance. Firstly it'll be a waste of time, but more importantly it would give them your details which could be used to extort a settlement on the threat of prosecution. They technically have them from the e-ticket scan but I suspect would be unlikely to pursue as they'll have scanned many that day and probably forgotten which one was which.

If you did want to make a fuss, you could contact the Police and report the assault by X; they are absolutely not allowed to do this*, but I do bet they'd lodge some kind of counterclaim. Sadly, while the Railcard issue is the railway's fault, it doesn't prevent a strict liability Byelaw prosecution. A sensible Magistrate would ask them what they are playing at, but some magistrates aren't sensible and just want an easy life.

* Unless a citizen's arrest would be appropriate for a Byelaw offence?

Is this behaviour and treatment of customers endemic in the British rail industry?

Yes.

If I make a complaint, what redress and/or action should I expect, if any?

It is unlikely anything will be done about this endemic issue even if one member of staff gets a telling off.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm sympathetic, but would probably not complain in this situation as technically you committed an offence by refusing or being unable to show a valid ticket or railcard.

However I don't blame you for getting frustrated and often think myself that in a similar situation I would just walk away, especially as I would have a valid ticket to show after the fact. They were wrong to manhandle you. In these circumstances I might just take satisfaction with the fact I had made the member of staff's day more frustrating and chalk it down to experience.

I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over the matter.

 

[All Line Rover]

However I would not make a complaint in this instance. Firstly it'll be a waste of time, but more importantly it would give them your details which could be used to extort a settlement on the threat of prosecution. They technically have them from the e-ticket scan but I suspect would be unlikely to pursue as they'll have scanned many that day and probably forgotten which one was which.

A prosecution for what? I hold a railcard (of a type only available digitally) that remains in-date for a considerable period of time.

I was sold the e-ticket, and I selected the relevant railcard, in a TOC's app this morning. If the problem with the railcard app has been ongoing for the past few days, how can TOCs continue to sell tickets with a railcard discount if they will not accept the railcard? That would be egregious mis-selling.

I'm also annoyed with the entire setup at Stansted Airport station and the premise that, at a station serving an airport, the typical passenger is likely to have an hour to waste simply to exit the station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A prosecution for what? I hold a railcard (of a type only available digitally) that remains in-date for a considerable period of time.

You did not show, on demand, a valid ticket and Railcard, which is a Byelaw breach.

This is grossly unfair, but the offence has still been committed despite it not being your fault. Whose fault it was is not relevant in a strict liability offence.

The railway may also have committed some sort of offence (though what I don't know). However that doesn't negate the one you've technically committed, sadly. This is why I'd probably not pursue this further.

The law is very often an ass, this is one of those cases. Prudent advice is to deal with the law as it is, not how we would want it to be.

I'm also annoyed with the entire setup at Stansted Airport station and the premise that, at a station serving an airport, the typical passenger is likely to have an hour to waste simply to exit the station.

if you planned to arrive at the airport only one hour before your flight's departure (other than at a few specific small airports designed for that like perhaps London City), you've cut it too fine. You'd miss your flight with one cancellation or a short delay.

You were lucky with security, but I've waited over half an hour at Stansted before. Ignoring the awfulness that is Manchester it's one of the worst airports for queueing, and then you've got to wait for the shuttle train for some gates.

 

[All Line Rover]

You did not show, on demand, a valid ticket and Railcard, which is a Byelaw breach.

If that is something they seriously tried to argue, I would raise that with my MP as an abuse of process. I am tempted to raise this issue with my MP already, as the very fact there could "technically" be a byelaw breach is unacceptable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that is something they seriously tried to argue, I would raise that with my MP as an abuse of process. I am tempted to raise this issue with my MP already, as the very fact there could "technically" be a byelaw breach is unacceptable.

I think they'll argue it specifically because you ran off. If you had waited to be dealt with, it might have simply been a PF which you could have appealed.

While I think this is grossly unfair, I think it's also slightly contributory to how this could be dealt with going forward that you didn't leave enough time between your train arrival and flight departure. A minimum of two hours between train arrival and flight departure is prudent (some travel insurance companies would insist on three if they were to pay out).

 

[All Line Rover]

if you planned to arrive at the airport only one hour before your flight's departure (other than at a few specific small airports designed for that like perhaps London City), you've cut it too fine. You'd miss your flight with one cancellation or a short delay.

Planned for 90 minutes, which was enough to organise an ad-hoc taxi if there were delays with the train service.

Currently flying around 2-3 times a week. Mostly from Heathrow tbh, so I'm familiar with the process. Time is money and I'm not prepared to waste more than necessary.

I'm surprisingly impressed with Stansted airport, though. Less than 5 minutes to get through security and less than 10 minutes for a shuttle/monorail to get to the departure gate. Overall, less time than I spent queuing trying to exit the railway station!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm surprisingly impressed with Stansted airport, though. Less than 5 minutes to get through security and less than 10 minutes for a shuttle/monorail to get to the departure gate. Overall, less time than I spent queuing trying to exit the railway station!

You got it on a good day. Unless it's domestic, just wait for the passport queue on the way back. Horrible airport.

 

[duncanp]

You did not show, on demand, a valid ticket and Railcard, which is a Byelaw breach.

This is grossly unfair, but the offence has still been committed despite it not being your fault. Whose fault it was is not relevant in a strict liability offence.

The railway may also have committed some sort of offence (though what I don't know). However that doesn't negate the one you've technically committed, sadly. This is why I'd probably not pursue this further.

Whilst it may be technically true that the OP has committed an offence, I think there is very little chance that any court would uphold a conviction.

Perhaps this matter needs to be tested in court, because if a holder of a digital railcard is unable to show the railcard due to the app not working properly, who is liable legally and financially for the consequences?

I would have thought that the common sense answer would be for the railway to take the details who was unable to show the railcard because of a dysfunctional app, check the records later to verify whether a valid railcard was held, and issue an unpaid fares notice if there is no record of a railcard on the system.

Sadly the railway, with its "..the customer is always wrong.." attitude will never do this.

This is why I bought a physical senior railcard after becoming eligible for one earlier this year.

If I was the OP, I would write a letter of complaint to the Stansted Express management, firstly about the queues to get out of the station, and secondly about the treatment by station staff.

 

[All Line Rover]

While I think this is grossly unfair, I think it's also slightly contributory to how this could be dealt with going forward that you didn't leave enough time between your train arrival and flight departure. A minimum of two hours between train arrival and flight departure is prudent (some travel insurance companies would insist on three if they were to pay out).

It's advertised as the Stansted "Express". They stress the fast journey time. Nothing about "btw you might need to wait an hour to exit the station". It isn't realistic to plan for that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst it may be technically true that the OP has committed an offence, I think there is very little chance that any court would uphold a conviction.

It's strict liability and solely a matter of fact. They could convict with an absolute discharge, though, I suppose (which as Byelaws aren't recordable is basically the same as not convicting to the vast majority of people), but it's a risk and the faff of actually attending.

A RoRA conviction wouldn't stick as that requires "mens rea" i.e. a level of wilfulness.

 

[duncanp]

It's strict liability and solely a matter of fact.

But failure to show a valid railcard because the App isn't working is hardly the railcard holders fault is it?

Why should someone be convicted of an offence because of something over which they have no control?

This is why I say that the issue needs to be tested in a court of law, because if it is the responsibility of the railcard holder to show a valid railcard when asked, surely the App owner has a responsibility to ensure that the App is functional at all times, in order that the railcard holder can fulfil their legal responsibilities.

What happens if the App goes down for several days?

Are the thousands of railcard holders just supposed to lump it any pay the difference in fares, or be convicted of an offence, in the meantime.

 

[All Line Rover]

I don't see how this argument holds. If the railcard app stopped working mid-journey and a ticket inspection then took place, are you saying that I have suddenly committed a byelaw offence?

If I have taken the steps I am expected to take in order to show my railcard, I believe I have fulfilled my obligation to show a railcard and the fact that the app does not show what it usually shows is irrelevant.

 

[AlterEgo]

Whilst it may be technically true that the OP has committed an offence, I think there is very little chance that any court would uphold a conviction.

Perhaps this matter needs to be tested in court, because if a holder of a digital railcard is unable to show the railcard due to the app not working properly, who is liable legally and financially for the consequences?

I would have thought that the common sense answer would be for the railway to take the details who was unable to show the railcard because of a dysfunctional app, check the records later to verify whether a valid railcard was held, and issue an unpaid fares notice if there is no record of a railcard on the system.

It's not really that that's the issue - it's that the OP walked away and refused to have their ticket and railcard verified.

Honestly it's just better to write this one off and take pleasure in having peed off someone on a bit of a trip. Whoever that was is lucky the OP isn't the type of person to use force back on them. Laying hands on passengers over a purely ticketing manner is stupid.

 

[All Line Rover]

I clearly showed the open railcard app before walking away. I did everything I would normally do to show my ticket and railcard.

I don't take any pleasure in annoying people.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't see how this argument holds. If the railcard app stopped working mid-journey and a ticket inspection then took place, are you saying that I have suddenly committed a byelaw offence?

If I have taken the steps I am expected to take in order to show my railcard, I believe I have fulfilled my obligation to show a railcard and the fact that the app does not show what it usually shows is irrelevant.

Because it is a strict liability matter, like speeding. Your intent, or your precautions taken to avoid committing the offence, are not material to your guilt. It is not a good situation but it is what it is.

 

[The exile]

You got it on a good day. Unless it's domestic, just wait for the passport queue on the way back. Horrible airport.

Got through the inbound passport queue in 5 minutes last Friday…
As to the point at issue - seems like yet another reason to stick to good old physical tickets and railcards!

 

[duncanp]

I clearly showed the open railcard app before walking away. I did everything I would normally do to show my ticket and railcadd.

It is worth noting the following on railcard.co.uk

We are currently experiencing a technical issue which means some of our customers are unable to download their digital Railcard to the Railcard app. We are working as fast as possible to fix the problem and will provide further updates via this website.

So there is an admission that the technical issue is to blame, and I for one don't see why the railcard holder should be expected to bear the financial and legal consequences of something that isn't their fault.

 

[island]

If you did want to make a fuss, you could contact the Police and report the assault by X; they are absolutely not allowed to do this*, but I do bet they'd lodge some kind of counterclaim. Sadly, while the Railcard issue is the railway's fault, it doesn't prevent a strict liability Byelaw prosecution. A sensible Magistrate would ask them what they are playing at, but some magistrates aren't sensible and just want an easy life.

* Unless a citizen's arrest would be appropriate for a Byelaw offence?

Railway staff are explicitly permitted by the Regulation of Railways Act to detain passengers who do not have a valid ticket, so no assault has been committed.

As such, all that a complaint would accomplish is making [more easily] available the passenger's details enabling a prosecution to be brought.

I would, without a lot of enthusiasm, recommend that sleeping dogs be allowed to lie.

 

[All Line Rover]

Because it is a strict liability matter, like speeding. Your intent, or your precautions taken to avoid committing the offence, are not material to your guilt. It is not a good situation but it is what it is.

There are a host of procedural protections against speeding offences, such as if speed limit signs are obscured by vegetation. A driver doing everything they can reasonably be expected to do to avoid speeding would not be convicted of speeding (if they instruct a reputable lawyer) unless the fault lies with their car. I don't think this is comparable.

 

[Watershed]

As I see it, there are three separate issues here.

The first is the queue for exiting Stansted Airport station. It's worst if you are unlucky enough to arrive as the last of three in a sequence of arrivals - one from Norwich, one from Liverpool Street, and one from Birmingham. These sorts of checks should really be conducted onboard the train, but if GA insist on doing them on arrival, they should install barriers to speed up the process, or have more than just 2 staff checking tickets.

The current arrangements are clearly unacceptable and demonstrate GA's utter contempt for its customers - they'd rather issue a few Penalty Fares or MG11s than avoid people missing their flights. There are several exits other than the main one where everyone queues - the lifts, the stairs towards the platform 2 end, as well as the ramp/ticket office at the buffer stops - so from a purely selfish perspective, you can avoid the queues by using one of these. However, if everyone did that then you would end up with the same problem, just spread across multiple queues.

Secondly, there's the issue with the Railcard app. This has been a known problem for days, and yet there still isn't a nationwide retail brief to tell staff to accept people who show a broken Railcard app. Again, this demonstrates the attitude problem in the industry. In the first place, how can a crucial piece of IT be allowed to fail that badly? And more importantly, how can you then try to blame or penalise the customer for it? I'd say it's unbelievable, but sadly the industry is just about a law unto itself. No other company would get away with it.

Finally, there's the issue of the member of staff grabbing the OP by the bag. Given the circumstances, this was also unacceptable - however, in the eyes of the law it may not necessarily have been an assault. Unfortunately I don't think there's much point in engaging further with GA or the police on that point, because with the OP having possibly (and unintentionally) committed an offence, the member of staff may have been entitled to try to attempt a citizen's arrest.

All these things, and in particular the highly unpredictable queues at security, not to mention the diabolical lounge situation (the only available one shuts at 7pm!), make for a very unpleasant travelling experience and so I do my utmost to avoid Stansted. Easier said than done, of course!

 

[Bletchleyite]

As to the point at issue - seems like yet another reason to stick to good old physical tickets and railcards!

I'm normally pro card payment, e-tickets etc but at present my advice to anyone is to opt for a plastic Railcard (though sadly 26-30 can't). The system is unfit for purpose.

There also seems to be evidence that the Trainline version works differently, so for a 26-30 I'd be inclined to go with them.

There are a host of procedural protections against speeding offences, such as if speed limit signs are obscured by vegetation. A driver doing everything they can reasonably be expected to do to avoid speeding would not be convicted of speeding (if they instruct a reputable lawyer) unless the fault lies with their car. I don't think this is comparable.

It's perhaps comparable with driving a seriously ill person to hospital above the speed limit because, due to the present known NHS issues, an ambulance would be hours. The Court, if it got there*, would have no option but to convict, but they would probably give consideration to doing so with an absolute discharge, i.e. no punishment.

* The CPS may well stop it. And therein lies why I think the railway should lose this ability - it doesn't have that safeguard.

 

[LAX54]

Got through the inbound passport queue in 5 minutes last Friday…
As to the point at issue - seems like yet another reason to stick to good old physical tickets and railcards!

The joys of a digital society that everyone seems to want, things will only get worse, as more and more things go online, and everyone is clogging up the system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The joys of a digital society that everyone seems to want, things will only get worse, as more and more things go online, and everyone is clogging up the system.

I've never had a problem with an e-ticket, that system is fit for purpose.

The Railcard system isn't. It's all about that, not about whether tech is good or bad. It's so unfit for purpose that in my view sales should cease immediately, reverting to plastic only, including the 26-30, and all present holders should be offered the chance for a pro-rata refund to buy a plastic one if they prefer.

 

[island]

There are a host of procedural protections against speeding offences, such as if speed limit signs are obscured by vegetation.

These can amount to mitigation.

A driver doing everything they can reasonably be expected to do to avoid speeding would not be convicted of speeding (if they instruct a reputable lawyer) unless the fault lies with their car.

This is not correct. Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states:

A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.

"Doing everything they reasonably be expected to do to avoid speeding" is not a legally recognised defence. Nor is having a defective car.

The "reputable lawyer" might be able to talk the magistrates into imposing a lesser than normal penalty or points, but that is as far as it goes.

I don't think this is comparable.

It's not directly comparable, no.

The Railcard system isn't. It's all about that, not about whether tech is good or bad. It's so unfit for purpose that in my view sales should cease immediately, reverting to plastic only, including the 26-30, and all present holders should be offered the chance for a pro-rata refund to buy a plastic one if they prefer.

I would agree with this.

 

[yorkie]

I am at Stansted Airport, about to board a flight.

I took the Stansted Express train from Liverpool St.

Everything was fine, until I arrived at Stansted Airport station. There was an enormous (200+) queue of people waiting to exit the station and only two staff members manually checking tickets.

Yes I saw that on Sunday. However if you ignore that exit, and go to the very front of the train near the buffer stops, there is an alternative exit where there may not be any queue. This is not made clear to passengers, however. Also I think you can get out by a third exit up a ramp, going back on yourself, again there may not be a queue there.

What tends to happen is everyone queues in one place and there is no queue mangement.

When I eventually reached the front of the queue (at which point I was about to ask the staff member, who I shall call "X", "What's the point of having a fast service from London if I need to wait twenty minutes to exit the station?"), X scans my ticket and immediately asks to see my railcard. I open the railcard app, it's not working (the first I've heard of this problem, but it is well documented in another thread on this forum, having apparently existed for at least the past two days) and I show X the faulty app.

Instead of saying "Oh, I'm very sorry to see that our systems are not fully working today. Thank you anyway. Have a nice day.", X says "You will need to speak to my colleague in the corner". This colleague has a queue of two, maybe more, hapless tourists. They will take some time to be helped. I hold a valid e-ticket, purchased on a TOC app that morning, and a valid railcard.

Unfortunately some of the staff who check tickets at stations don't have a clue on how to do customer service; your experience does not suprise me at all.

My response is "I have a flight to board in one hour and have been waiting long enough in this queue. I'm certainly not waiting any longer." I walk past and proceed up the escalator into the airport. X runs after me! X grabs my rucksack (a small flight bag with shoulder straps) and tries to drag me back down the escalator. When it became clear that X had no chance of moving me anywhere (I'm not sure what X was thinking; I'm not of a build that the average person can push around), X lets go. I proceed up the escalator into the airport. I am currently waiting for my flight in the departure lounge, having passed security in a delightfully seamless experience, with polite staff, that took less than five minutes!

I am shocked and angry at how I was treated by the railway this morning. No airline, low-cost or otherwise, would dare to treat a paying customer in this way (United Airlines excepted). Fortunately X did not damage my rucksack, otherwise I would be in real difficulty right now in getting through security and boarding a flight with only one, damaged, flight bag.

Is this behaviour and treatment of customers endemic in the British rail industry? If I make a complaint, what redress and/or action should I expect, if any?

The staff member should be sacked for that behaviour, which is deeply inappropriate, but I am not convinced appropriate action would be taken as I don't have much confidence complaints will be taken seriously.

You did not show, on demand, a valid ticket and Railcard, which is a Byelaw breach.

This is grossly unfair, but the offence has still been committed despite it not being your fault. Whose fault it was is not relevant in a strict liability offence..

And this is why I've argued many times on this forum that the byleaws are not fit for purpose; the app had a fault which was well known about, and customers should not be deemed guilty of anything. But let's not go down that road again.

The joys of a digital society that everyone seems to want, things will only get worse, as more and more things go online, and everyone is clogging up the system.

Not at all; it was not the e-ticket that was the problem, it was the app, which is not fit for purpose, and inappropriate behaviour by staff.

If the staff had behaved appropriately the issue would have not arisen, regardless of the failure of the railcard app.

It is worth noting the following on railcard.co.uk



So there is an admission that the technical issue is to blame, and I for one don't see why the railcard holder should be expected to bear the financial and legal consequences of something that isn't their fault.

Exactly. But this is the rail industry and some people within the industry think that treating passengers badly is acceptable.

 

[duncanp]

I think the issue here is who is responsible for the railcard holder being unable to show that they have a valid railcard.

• In the case of a physical railcard, if the holder leaves it at home or loses it, it is the holder's responsibility
• In the case of a digital railcard, if the holder loses their phone, or doesn't have enough battery on their phone, it is the holder's responsibility.
• In the case of a digital railcard, if App is not working, I think it is far from clear that this is the holder's responsibility.

The railcard terms and conditions need to be updated to take account of this eventuality.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The railcard terms and conditions need to be updated to take account of this eventuality.

Agree.

It'd be sensible to apply the "forgotten Railcard" approach to it, but without eating one of the "strikes", as a blanket policy. That is issue a PF which is cancelled on sending a screenshot of the valid Railcard.

 

[island]

I think in a scenario where there is a widespread known failure of the app, the railway should just accept the word of anyone who says they have a Railcard. Taking details and following the forgotten Railcard procedure for that many people is impractical, not to mention a waste of time for passengers who've done nothing wrong.