The sooner the laws change on railway ticketing issues the better.

Discussion in 'Disputes & Prosecutions' started by shredder1, 11 Jan 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shredder1

    shredder1 Member

    Messages:
    882
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2016
    Location:
    North Manchester
    Moderator's note: split from What am I being Prosecuted for?

    What a way to treat a genuine customer, the guy makes a mistake and is potentially turned into a criminal, the sooner the laws change on issues like this the better.
     
  2. Clip

    Clip Established Member

    Messages:
    8,521
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2010
    And then everyone does this and we have a situation where 2 seasons are in use with different photocards but we have to accept that and have the railways lose money because its good customer service yes?

    You dont know the OP and neither do I so you are in no position to say they are genuine - though I am not saying they arent but in the real world we live and work in we have to have strict rules to try and stop fraud on the railway and the rules on seasons must be clear and as is the case with buying seasons they are as clear as day and no muddying can be done with them and as such we have to treat everyone the same.

    Its a harsh reality but one we have to accept.
     
  3. daikilo

    daikilo Established Member

    Messages:
    1,132
    Joined:
    2 Feb 2010
    The bit that intrigues me is why the photocard was confiscated as it, presumably, was perfectly valid but just not a valid justification for the season as printed. There is obviously the issue of how the fare is paid for the first day of travel, but if the season was reissued/exchanged (by say a booking office) without change of date all would be resolved. Has the correct process been used by revenue protection?
     
    Last edited: 11 Jan 2017
  4. shredder1

    shredder1 Member

    Messages:
    882
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2016
    Location:
    North Manchester
    Sorry friend, I totally disagree and its because people accept these things, we allow these situations to continue, people with poor eyesight could make a simple mistake similar to this, laws are suppose to be based on reasonable assumption, sadly reality doesnt appear to visit here anymore.
     
    Last edited: 11 Jan 2017
  5. AlterEgo

    AlterEgo Established Member

    Messages:
    8,596
    Joined:
    30 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Surrey
    None of this is going to help the OP.
     
  6. najaB

    najaB Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,349
    Joined:
    28 Aug 2011
    Location:
    Scotland
    What, exactly, do you disagree with? The need for revenue protection? That the rules should be applied consistently? That TOCs should investigate ticketing irregularities?
     
  7. DaleCooper

    DaleCooper Established Member

    Messages:
    2,773
    Joined:
    2 Mar 2015
    Location:
    No.664 - Next door to the Beast
    At the moment this incident is being investigated and the TOC might well decide no further action is necessary, however in your world nothing should be investigated just in case the person is innocent.
     
  8. najaB

    najaB Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,349
    Joined:
    28 Aug 2011
    Location:
    Scotland
    Law operates, as much as possible, on fact not assumption.
     
  9. shredder1

    shredder1 Member

    Messages:
    882
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2016
    Location:
    North Manchester
    really?
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    Response to above post, please re read
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    lets hope so then
     
  10. Darandio

    Darandio Established Member

    Messages:
    5,291
    Joined:
    24 Feb 2007
    Location:
    Redcar
    Of course it isn't. How can you voicing displeasure at what has happened to the OP actually help them?
     
  11. AlterEgo

    AlterEgo Established Member

    Messages:
    8,596
    Joined:
    30 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Surrey
    Yes, really. None of what you or I say or think, about how fair all this is, will actually assist the OP.
     
  12. shredder1

    shredder1 Member

    Messages:
    882
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2016
    Location:
    North Manchester

    Yes I agree, Its called being supportive, if what has been posted is true, any reasonably minded person would feel supportive, yes. Operators must prosecute the crimnal element of course, but at the cost of the innocent,and those that make genuine mistakes?
     
  13. Darandio

    Darandio Established Member

    Messages:
    5,291
    Joined:
    24 Feb 2007
    Location:
    Redcar
    I'm not disagreeing with you, i'm just saying that it is of no help to them in this thread, which is for assistance and advice.
     
  14. shredder1

    shredder1 Member

    Messages:
    882
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2016
    Location:
    North Manchester
    Of course it will, we all need support at times, especially when things go wrong, most people welome the opinions of others.
     
  15. AlterEgo

    AlterEgo Established Member

    Messages:
    8,596
    Joined:
    30 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Surrey
  16. shredder1

    shredder1 Member

    Messages:
    882
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2016
    Location:
    North Manchester


    Ah I see, no problem then
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    No personal opinions, ah I see, keep up the good work then, I enjoy reading these posts.
     
  17. Haywain

    Haywain Established Member

    Messages:
    2,024
    Joined:
    3 Feb 2013
    It's called evidence gathering. If there's been an offence, it will be used as evidence of the offence. If there hasn't it can be returned, not that the train companies charge for photocards anyway.

    It looks like it has.
     
  18. bb21

    bb21 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    21,451
    Joined:
    4 Feb 2010
    If that were the case, the customer can submit supporting evidence from a doctor and discretion will likely be exercised.

    It is up to the customer to submit evidence of mitigating factors.
     
  19. tsr

    tsr Established Member

    Messages:
    6,172
    Joined:
    15 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Ballast
    It's "kind of" been suggested above, but essentially this wasn't a mistake, it was a deliberate calculation that it would be better to make a potential error and catch the train, than possibly miss the train and eliminate that particular risk of prosecution.

    No matter how quickly that decision was made, or how much it relies on the OP's knowledge of the law or their temperament, the fact is that you do not accidentally decide not to bother checking your photocard, if you're unsure what order the number is in.

    Before I worked on the railway I used to purchase weekly seasons, sometimes in a great hurry. Like many (most? I suppose) people, I had a ticket wallet into which I would insert my season, next to the photocard. I would be ready to insert the new ticket into the wallet after going through the barrier anyway, and knew I would need the photocard for the machine, therefore requiring a split second of planning on my walk to the station to swap the two actions around and ensure that I had in fact got the wallet, and thus correct photocard number, handy before I bought the ticket.

    Now I do work on the railway, it is incredibly noticeable how people huff and puff when asked for their accompanying photocard, ask why I want to see it, or don't have it with them at all. Most people, however, are perfectly reasonable when the risk of high-value fraud is stated to them, because they don't want the railway to incur any more losses than it already does! The risk has been plainly stated here, too. Unfortunately there is every possibility that a station may have issued photocards with extremely similar numbers, so it is not always easy to say whether or not a ticket has been bought by or for someone else.
     
    Last edited: 12 Jan 2017
  20. shredder1

    shredder1 Member

    Messages:
    882
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2016
    Location:
    North Manchester
    Many thanks for your post but apparently I can`t answer you here ??,
     
  21. DaleCooper

    DaleCooper Established Member

    Messages:
    2,773
    Joined:
    2 Mar 2015
    Location:
    No.664 - Next door to the Beast
    You can start a new thread in the general forum and say pretty much anything you want - within reason.
     
  22. shredder1

    shredder1 Member

    Messages:
    882
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2016
    Location:
    North Manchester
    Thanks very much Dale, appreciated mate
     
  23. Busaholic

    Busaholic Established Member

    Messages:
    5,952
    Joined:
    7 Jun 2014
    The sooner it's taken out of the hands of the TOC the better - it'll happen, or my name's not Donald Trump.
     
  24. Agent_c

    Agent_c Member

    Messages:
    933
    Joined:
    22 Jan 2015
    No, they're not supposed to be on "Reasonable Assumption"... Strict liability offences are just that. You either went over the speed limit, or you didn't. You either had a valid ticket, or you don't.

    Now, in the case of disabilities there might be a human rights argument about adjustment for that disability, but we're talking about an apparently able bodied person who was just too busy to make sure he did it right. Thats the risk you run when you cut corners, he made that choice, and ultimately the risk didn't pay off.

    The Strict Liability rules are there with good reason - to prevent fraudulent use.
     
  25. Master29

    Master29 Member

    Messages:
    614
    Joined:
    19 Feb 2015
    It's nothing to do with laws. It's about terms and conditions of travel. He made a mess of things, as was pointed out in the post. Yes, he may well have been genuine but who's to say.
     
  26. yorkie

    yorkie Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    34,903
    Joined:
    6 Jun 2005
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Really? If only that were true!
     
  27. Via Bank

    Via Bank Member

    Messages:
    531
    Joined:
    28 Mar 2010
    Location:
    London
    Consider this (genuine) story: for a while I held a season ticket from a major London terminal to a suburban station, renewing weekly at said London terminal.

    One day, after leaving the ticket office, I noticed that the season ticket had a leading zero on my Photocard number (the photocard number was ABC 123, the number on the ticket was ABC 0123.) I went back to the ticket office, insisted the ticket be re-issued, and the clerk apologised and blamed the TIS.

    Whether down to a bug in the TIS or operator error, had I used the ABC 0123 season ticket to travel, I would have been committing a strict liability offence, as the ticket I had been sold was not valid. I would have left myself open to byelaw prosecution because of this error, had I not spotted it and thought it a bit odd.

    What if I hadn't noticed? What if I'd made the (perfectly reasonable) assumption that ABC 123 and ABC 0123, in Photocard world, are equivalent, and the leading zero made no difference?

    I would have been committing a criminal offence due to a failure on the part of the Railway, for which the Railway could prosecute me, and have a reaonable shot at winning (or at least extracting a juicy settlement.) That can't be right.
     
    Last edited: 12 Jan 2017
  28. fredk

    fredk Member

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    2 Sep 2016
    I completely agree with the OPs opinion in regard to treating someone as a criminal for mistyping a few numbers.

    How this can be enforced is beyond me, when there is no authentication on the numbers. The customer can type any number. So you are relying on the customer to perform a pretty complex task, using software with no authentication on the input. Then treating the customer as a criminal for typing in the wrong number.

    Madness. But I expect it from the UK railways sadly.
     
  29. philthetube

    philthetube Member

    Messages:
    815
    Joined:
    5 Jan 2016
    The passenger was asked to type a number, they do not claim that it was too difficult for them, if that was the case they had the option to go to the ticket office.
     
  30. Clip

    Clip Established Member

    Messages:
    8,521
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2010
    It can be enforced because the terms and conditions of said ticket require you to enter the correct number of your photocard for your ticket to be valid.

    If you do not have matching numbers then you are not in possession of a valid ticket to travel.

    If you do not have a valid ticket for travel then you have committed an offence.


    It simply can not be clearer.

    If people cannot be held responsible for their actions then we may as well just give up the ghost now and retire from any sort of revenue protection.

    If a person has a disability of any kind which prevents them for doing this task on a TVM then, if the booking office is there and open they can do that there plus the railway and its employees would show discretion to said person.

    @Via Bank In your situation then yes you would have committed the offence of not having a valid ticket however you would have a perfectly reasonable explanation for this as any RPI or guard would see that the ticket was issued by a booking office and would know that the error was down to an employee of the railway and as such you wouldnt(or shouldnt) be prosecuted. But as you done the right thing which everyone should do and check their tickets are correct then you averted any undue stress to yourself.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page