The best evidence yet that Transport Focus is impotent

[najaB]

Brushing aside such happenings with a 'well most of the time things are fine so everything's OK' attitude will not result in a modification of unacceptable behaviour by those who think it is OK to start off by telling someone "that ticket is not valid".

Where did I say that everything's OK? I'm pretty sure I said it isn't acceptable for law-abiding passengers to get caught up in revenue protection.

I don't think it's acceptable for law abiding passengers to get caught up in the net that is cast to catch fare evaders.

Yup. Thought I did. What I said (and I know I'm repeating myself) is that there is a problem, but visiting these forums is naturally going to leave one with the impression that it's a massive problem, when it's actually one that affects (and is caused by) a small minority of passengers and staff.

Is there scope for improvement? Of course there is. Do staff get things wrong? Of course they do. Does the average passenger need to approach a train journey with fear and trepidation? Nope.

 

[bb21]

I can't speak for bb21 but I don't think it's acceptable for law abiding passengers to get caught up in the net that is cast to catch fare evaders. But we need to keep things in perspective. There is a problem - that is undeniable. But is it "...a lottery as to whether an inexperienced, law abiding passenger will be able to..."? Is it a "big problem"?

We see a lot of these cases on this forum, but that's to be expected as people won't post when they've been shown discretion.

Well, I am perfectly clear in what I meant. If people choose to interpret it a different way then I can't help that.

There is no excuse for poor service and all that, but let's not lose the perspective that it is only a very small minority, just like in any other industry, or even just restricted to the service sector as some always enjoy pointing out. There are bad eggs in all companies. It's an important issue that needs tackling, but that is by no means a big problem or makes travelling by rail a lottery, as some would like to put it.

I'm not for a minute suggesting you both feel this way, but there does seem to be a 'well most of the time things are fine so everything's OK' attitude within the railway industry, which quite frankly I don't think is good enough for a service industry in the 21st century.

That's quite clearly not what I said, and I think you know it.

I've had to spend two weeks having sleepless nights, spent 40 hours (mostly unproductively) dealing with the case and fallen out with a family member because c2c fail to recognise the validity of my ticket and repeatedly accused me of travelling with an invalid ticket and now refuse to handle my complaint.

Thats not a big problem is it?

If I stole all everything you had, I could still turn around and say that I only stole 0.000000001% of the money in the world so theft by me is not a big problem.

It wouldn't make the problem any less big for you as an individual now that you had no way of buying food or housing or washing yourself.

People's lives are being ruined by the behaviour of TOC's and if my example is anything to go by, they are acting with impugnity.

Your case clearly does not fall into the "overwhelming majority" group, so don't twist my words.

It is a big problem on its own. It is nowhere near being a big problem in the grand scheme of things. You are one customer in millions, who travel without any incident whatsoever.

 

[All Line Rover]

Your case clearly does not fall into the "overwhelming majority" group, so don't twist my words.

It is a big problem on its own. It is nowhere near being a big problem in the grand scheme of things. You are one customer in millions, who travel without any incident whatsoever.

319321's case is unusual. Using a ticket with different off-peak restrictions from the average passenger on a train is not so usual, but can be just as likely to cause problems.

The vast majority of passengers experience no problems because they travel from A to B using a ticket from A to B, most likely on a direct train. That they don't experience any problems is hardly surprising. How much simpler can things get?

The fact that straying just a little further from that norm - for example, using an off-peak ticket with a cross-London interchange - can involve the risk of being dragged through the courts, is what is unsatisfactory.

 

[bb21]

The fact that straying just a little further from that norm - for example, using an off-peak ticket with a cross-London interchange - can involve the risk of being dragged through the courts, is what is unsatisfactory.

... and how often does that happen?

Of course it is not acceptable when it happens, but let's not pretend it is a major issue.

 

[MikeWh]

... and how often does that happen?

Of course it is not acceptable when it happens, but let's not pretend it is a major issue.

Well maybe not dragged through the courts, but the fact that a certain member on here often has problems at Paddington despite the efforts of senior management suggests that there are major issues.

 

[bb21]

Well maybe not dragged through the courts, but the fact that a certain member on here often has problems at Paddington despite the efforts of senior management suggests that there are major issues.

Including all the cases where problems occur (any problem), what proportion of journeys does that represent? What proportion results in significant issues? Less than 1 in 1000? Less than 1 in 1 million?

It will obviously not be just one or two incidents, but it still only represents a very very small minority that will need sorting out. I don't think I ever said things were perfect, or that they are acceptable when it happens, but that only ever represents a very small minority. It does not make rail travel a "lottery".

 

[crehld]

That's quite clearly not what I said, and I think you know it.

Indeed it's not, as I very clearly and explicitly stated in the passage you quoted. I was making a more general comment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't speak for bb21 but I don't think it's acceptable for law abiding passengers to get caught up in the net that is cast to catch fare evaders. But we need to keep things in perspective. There is a problem - that is undeniable. But is it "...a lottery as to whether an inexperienced, law abiding passenger will be able to..."? Is it a "big problem"?

We see a lot of these cases on this forum, but that's to be expected as people won't post when they've been shown discretion.

Indeed. And of course the disputes section of the forum is a rather self selecting sample.

But I would say, based on my personal experience, the validity of the tickets I hold (which are always valid) are questioned 5% of the time (when my ticket is checked at all), and I'm rarely prone to using controversial loopholes and the like. That's simply too high for my liking. Now I'm quite confident in standing my ground when I know I'm in the right, but I have witnessed first-hand where fellow passengers with even the most basic point to point tickets are told their ticket isn't valid and they need to buy a new one. The average punter, when faced with a uniformed member of railway staff and in front of others, is likely to simply pay up.

My broader point is it's a training issue and that has to be dealt with my TOC management. But that's never going to be resolved with a 'well in broader perspective everything is fine and dandy' attitude. It requires tge industry to adopt a baseline of saying even one error is wholly unacceptable. I'm sure that's something we can all agree on!

 

[bb21]

My broader point is it's a training issue and that has to be dealt with my TOC management. But that's never going to be resolved with a 'well in broader perspective everything is fine and dandy' attitude. It requires tge industry to adopt a baseline of saying even one error is wholly unacceptable. I'm sure that's something we can all agree on!

That's a very dangerous assumption. Even if 'well in broader perspective everything is fine and dandy', it does not mean there is nothing that can be improved on. There is always something that can be improved.

Anyone who adopts the "broadly fine so job done" attitude should be removed from management roles by responsible business owners.

 

[infobleep]

You remember quite correctly!

It was inBrowning v Floyd (1946) KB 597
Arthur Donald Floyd, the husband, actually had a valid ticket in his pocket during travel, but instead presented his wife's unused outward portion of her return ticket, intending to use his own on a future occasion. He was deemed not to have paid his fare; as an offence under RoRA Section 5
His Offence was found to have been captured by three Acts of Parliament and one Railway Byelaw (the given ticket), and Doris Floyd, his wife, was found guilty of aiding and abetting her husband to travel with intent to avoid payment and of transferring a partly used ticket one Railway Byelaw offence in her own right. Both Guilty of Byelaw 6.

Did they get fined for it by the court?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Greenback]

I don't think I've ever had any on train ticket issues in more than thirty years of travelling by rail.

I have had a few misunderstandings at ticket barriers, but even those have been few and far between, and have been easily resolved by way of an explanation.

Either I've been lucky, and I know that I don't travel through and around London as often as many on here do, or this is more likely to be the usual experience of a huge majority of travellers.

That's not to deny that the industry does have a problem with training and communicating. I know that it does, as I've seen it for myself from the inside, albeit quite a few years ago now.

I do think that a sense of perspective is needed, though.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It requires tge industry to adopt a baseline of saying even one error is wholly unacceptable.

Given how complicated the ticketing is in this country, with peak and off-peak periods being defined by the ticket held, mistakes will happen. It is how the industry deal with those mistakes that is the issue. GWR don't seem to be dealing with the issue at Paddington all that well, but equally it is an unusual ticket being used as a loophole around the peak evening restrictions put in place on most other similar tickets.

Without wishing to go over 319321's case yet again, let's just as that it is unusual and that it normally takes two parties to prolong a dispute in the way that one has been.

It isn't a case of saying "90% is good enough", but the absolute vast majority of people travel without a hitch. I can't remember the last time I had an issue on the railway and I've used some interesting tickets, including the tickets from Kent to Sheffield and Tweedbank to Glasgow that were massively mispriced by the pricing TOC.

 

[319321]

Without wishing to go over 319321's case yet again, let's just as that it is unusual and that it normally takes two parties to prolong a dispute in the way that one has been.

Indeed it does. You can see that from the time I wrote the letter of complaint in December 2014 which clearly showed why c2c were in the wrong, I was seeking a quick and early resolution to the problem.

All they wanted me to do was drop it and go away, which I will not. This seems to be a tactic that they are very familiar with.

 

[sheff1]

GWR don't seem to be dealing with the issue at Paddington all that well, but equally it is an unusual ticket being used as a loophole around the peak evening restrictions put in place on most other similar tickets.

Why should point to point day return tickets from large towns 30/40 mins one side of London to similar sized towns around the same distance the other side of London be considered in anyway unusual ?. The restrictions for a wide range of such journeys (not just the one flagged on this forum) are exactly the same and are clearly set as such by the TOC and are in no way a loophole.

 

[MikeWh]

GWR don't seem to be dealing with the issue at Paddington all that well, but equally it is an unusual ticket being used as a loophole around the peak evening restrictions put in place on most other similar tickets.

I consider that statement to be quite accusatory. I have every reason to believe that the ticket in question is being used in the way that it is intended, including the Kent to Paddington section. There are cheaper alternatives available if all that was required is a 'loophole' to get round the evening peak restrictions at Paddington.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I consider that statement to be quite accusatory. I have every reason to believe that the ticket in question is being used in the way that it is intended, including the Kent to Paddington section.

I'm sure it is, it isn't intended as accusatory, rather that the ticket itself is different to nearly all other tickets to the same destination and a certain amount of unfamiliarity is to be expected. My point is that railway staff cannot be expected to know all ticket restrictions from a station, even with the best training. The issues with most of these incidents is that staff are not given equipment to check these things out, rather than more sinister reasons that other people on this thread seem to be trying to imply.

 

[Flamingo]

In over ten years as a guard checking tickets on HST's in and out of Paddington, I can never remember seeing that particular ticket at any time of the day - indeed, for the past two years I have been looking for it, with no success...

 

[sheff1]

The issues with most of these incidents is that staff are not given equipment to check these things out, rather than more sinister reasons that other people on this thread seem to be trying to imply.

I am not trying to imply anything. I am stating, as a matter of fact, that on a number of occasions the opening line when a staff member has looked at my ticket has been "that is not valid". If they do not know the validity of the ticket (which they clearly do not) and have no means to check then why are they accusing me of travelling with an invalid ticket ?

On board staff could, if they desired, fill out the necessary TIR forms to get the ticket investigated. I doubt barrier staff would have the training to do this, but they could refer me to the ticket office if they were unsure of the validity. In one case, which I reported on here, I was referred to the ticket office but only after I had challenged the false accusation of illegally attempting to use a ticket. Naturally, the ticket office confirmed that the very straightforward ticket starting at that station was 100% valid but that did not stop the barrier attendant continuing to imply that I was somehow 'trying it on'.

 

[All Line Rover]

My point is that railway staff cannot be expected to know all ticket restrictions from a station, even with the best training. The issues with most of these incidents is that staff are not given equipment to check these things out, rather than more sinister reasons that other people on this thread seem to be trying to imply.

No one expects ticket inspectors to be familiar with every possible ticket. The issue is that some ticket inspectors, if in doubt, resort to an attempted "fine" / prosecution rather than seek clarification or raise the matter with management. The documentation obtained under the FOIA by 319321 shows that some TOCs are perfectly happy to condone such behaviour, and, even when ticket inspectors on the ground behave appropriately, senior management are prepared to assert that tickets are invalid on plainly mistaken grounds. The extent of this incompetence and the lack of an ombudsman with enforcement powers is a genuine cause for questioning the extent of the powers held by TOCs.

 

[FenMan]

I travelled from Blackwater to Wimbledon on a Saturday - so no knowledge of peak times was necessary - in the days when there were no TVMs at Blackwater.

On the train, I asked for the appropriate ticket (and knew the price of it). The guard tried to sell me a more expensive option, which I refused. As he was getting persistent and we were just about to arrive at North Camp, I told him I would leave the train and buy the correctly priced ticket at Ash Vale instead i.e. taking the walk instead of changing at Guildford.

This caused much hoohaa and he insisted I remained on the train. I told him that would be fine provided he sold me the ticket at the correct price. He disappeared for 5 minutes (probably phoning hone) before reappearing and selling me what I asked for. No apology was forthcoming and his body language wasn't great.

Funnily enough, in the many, many times I've travelled on the line since, I never encountered him again.

 

[319321]

No one expects ticket inspectors to be familiar with every possible ticket.

Section 5.v.a of the Ticket Irregularities Code of Practice says that

Train companies will ensure that all staff employed in connection with the
checking of tickets and the enforcement of revenue protection measures are
adequately trained in the tasks which they are required to carry out. As a
minimum this will include:
The National Rail Conditions of Carriage
The Railway Byelaws
The relevant terms and conditions of the tickets they are required to check
Conflict avoidance

 

[ainsworth74]

I guess the problem is though that compliance with that Code of Practice isn't mandatory.

 

[319321]

It isn't mandatory, but for consumer law purposes I would argue that these Approved Codes of Practice are a useful benchmark to consider whether or a service has been carried out with reasonable care and skill.

The service must be carried out with reasonable care and skill. What does this mean in practice? It means that a trader must carry out the work to the same or similar standard to that which is considered acceptable within their trade or profession. Industry standards within a particular service sector, relevant codes of practice and even the law (such as building regulations and credit legislation) are useful benchmarks to consider when deciding if a trader has carried out the service with reasonable care and skill.

Note: The caveat applies that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 doesn't yet apply to the railway sector but the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations do.

 

[All Line Rover]

I don't interpret the code of practice as requiring ticket inspectors to memorise every restriction code and permitted route for every ticket they may encounter.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Originally Posted by Ticket Irregularities Code of Practice p6
Train companies will ensure that all staff employed in connection with the
checking of tickets and the enforcement of revenue protection measures are
adequately trained in the tasks which they are required to carry out. As a
minimum this will include:
The National Rail Conditions of Carriage
The Railway Byelaws
The relevant terms and conditions of the tickets they are required to check
Conflict avoidance

The problem of course is that while it is perfectly reasonable that ticket checking staff should have training in "relevant terms and conditions" it would certainly not be reasonable that such training should aim to give said staff a complete and intimate knowledge of all possible routeing possibilities contained within the National Routeing Guide. Indeed as anyone who has made the effort to understand how to use the Routeing Guide will surely realise that publication is simply not practical for repeated consultation during ticket checking duties. Of course many of the issues we are referring to here are not related to routeing but those who consider routeing issues to be a serious concern should consider what an appropriate and practical solution might be.

 

[Via Bank]

I don't interpret the code of practice as requiring ticket inspectors to memorise every restriction code and permitted route for every ticket they may encounter.

Memorisation is not something to aspire to anyway, since people's memories tend to (a) be flawed in the first place, and (b) difficult to change once someone's ways are set.

This is literally the kind of task computers were designed for. There is no reason whatsoever that the 'default response' should be anything other than "one moment, madam, let me scan your ticket with my machine… hold on… that's fine, thank you."

But given certain (admittedly anecdotal) cases of members of staff holding years-old printouts in higher esteem than up-to-date reference data, one wonders whether the problem is "it's difficult to look it up," or is instead "staff can't be bothered to look it up."

 

[najaB]

But given certain (admittedly anecdotal) cases of members of staff holding years-old printouts in higher esteem than up-to-date reference data, one wonders whether the problem is "it's difficult to look it up," or is instead "staff can't be bothered to look it up."

That issue isn't unique to the railways, nor is it an indictment of the staff concerned. It is one of the biggest challenges to adult learning. Adult brains hold on to what they 'know' to be correct and by default reject anything that contradicts it - unlike child brains which act more like sponges.

It's an evolutionary thing: children don't know how to avoid sabre-tooths so it's in their best interest to learn quickly. Adults have managed not to get eaten so it's best to keep doing what they've been doing as it's apparently working.

Unless the adult can be convinced that the new thing is better *for them* they will stick with the old thing.