WMR are sending out speculative emails without a stop, as have other companies before after being alerted by Trainline. Don’t use a Trainline powered site either; all the low wattage evaders use that site and I’m sure I read the company effectively had to agree to do these speculative audits to show they are making efforts to “reduce fraud”.
Not always.
Very possibly.
It's not their *duty*, true. But it will potentially save them a lot of hassle. And in the case (which appears to happen) where, in a hurry, they accidentally buy a ticket for themselves with the senior railcard and don't notice, they will actually save themselves from accidentally committing a criminal offence.
Or give her the money to buy the tickets herself
I suspect @General Zod is buying the tickets as they are more familiar with purchasing rail tickets than their mum. I bet mum is then reimbursing @General Zod .
It is perfectly allowable to purchase a ticket for someone else.
i know that.
I would assume it really depends on the journeys and how complex the data analysis is. If you take a consistent journey, and then sometimes buy two tickets with two different railcards, surely that is obviously two travelling together, likely a vulnerable person if one has a senior railcard.
I don't believe this covers e-tickets bought with railcards. The ticket is not actually marked with a name, and cannot be referenced against the railcard. Day rangers and similar tickets are marked by name, and this rule applies to them.
But tickets aren’t “made out in the passenger’s name”. What sort of tickets bear the passenger’s name that you’re thinking about here?
It is, but this would need to be bought in-person and not via an app. The other person would need to be present while these types of tickets are printed. Day rangers would be too easy to copy and re-distribute, so this is to prevent that (although identification is uncommon). The wording used on the NRCoT are a little ambiguous because it states:
but this presumably (and reasonably) refers to when the passenger uses a railcard as proof that their identity matches the name on the ticket.
Exactly, so the scenario would be a ticket purchase requiring a railcard purchased for someone else who is 'identified' at the point they use the ticket. All fine, but not allowed by the NRCOT wording. Note the (not sure how) in my earlier post, because I'm assuming you can purchase the ticket without the railcard or with a different one from the one that would be used by the passenger.
With respect, it does not say this. It prohibits the transfer of a ticket made out in the passenger’s name to a person who is not that passenger.
This is incorrect: where a railcard discounted ticket is purchased on behalf of someone else then there is in law no transfer at all between the purchaser and the passenger. This is because of the operation of the general law of agency.
It is not and does not.
Season tickets are (well, to be exact, they’re tied to a Photocard which is in a passenger’s name).
Season tickets are issued to a specific person, identified by the photocard.
Buying a ticket for another person has never been prohibited.
Perhaps I am being pedantic but the ticket isn’t made out in the passenger’s name. The Photocard is.
Day or longer period ones should be (in my experience, day ones usually aren’t). My current months Freedom Teavelpass is , for the first time, endorsed with both my name and photo card number. (Had one or the other before and frequently neither - never both).
I've bought an eTicket directly from a TOC before now, and when running the Aztec code through an online eTicket decoder noticed that the eTicket included my surname as the ticket holder name.
That does not mean the ticket is "made out in your name" or that you have to substantiate your identity. Even CCST TOD tickets have my name on them *as the purchaser*, but they aren't made out in my name.
Whilst I agree it shouldn't mean that, I think the decoder showed the surname field as "Traveller Name" (I'll have to see if I can dig out the eTicket again), which implied it was specific
