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

[najaB]

Inserting the single word "written" in Byelaw 18 would achieve that.

What if the passenger is travelling on a smart card or eTicket which the staff member updates?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

but I have no hesitation in asserting that remedies for genuine "cases of rail staff refusing to . . . . . valid ticket . . . etc. . ." are already well established in law, and it shouldn't take any moderately competent local law firm more than 10 minutes to see the route forward to being a persuasive claim against such a railway company. It's really not going to be difficult.

So now we can look to the historical record.
How many such claims have come forward to Court ?
I can think of three.
Two failed. One was settled out of Court.

Would those figures really be representative of how many cases of valid tickets being refused exist? If I've paid ten quid for a ticket and for some reason a member of staff incorrectly thinks it's invalid, then:

• Firstly, if I'm not particularly knowledgeable about railways, I'm likely to assume that the member of staff was correct, and therefore not pursue that matter.
• Secondly, even if I do think my ticket was actually valid, am I really going to spend the time and what may well come to hundreds of pounds going to solicitors and taking it to court in order to recover £10? I'd imagine most people would feel very angry and frustrated but wouldn't bother taking it any further - and therefore would not show up in any statistics.

I'm sure that the number of times that a passenger is refused travel where legally (or on moral grounds if they were missold a ticket due to error by rail staff) they ought to be allowed travel is a negligibly small proportion of journeys, and probably something to be handled on a case-by-case basis. I agree with you to the extent that I can't see any justification for a massive change in procedures to deal with this problem - there are more important issues for the railways. But I doubt numbers are as tiny as those figures you quoted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What if the passenger is travelling on a smart card or eTicket which the staff member updates?

Then they have a valid ticket, not other authority.

 

[shredder1]

The views of some people on this thread show us precisely what is wrong with the railways in the UK. This is the attitude which was meant to be removed in 1993 when privatisation happened.

It's inward looking, inconsiderate, and arrogant. Jump to blame the customer without considering the experience provided is flawed. No company operating today could get away with this, apart from the rail industry backed up by government and a fragmented cluster of operators with different ideas and rules.

I cannot understand those who think it's ok for a customer to be treated as a criminal for making a mistake entering a number. This would make sense when you could only season tickets from an experienced human who would not input an incorrect number. Now you are relying on the customer to input the number, then penalising them if they get it wrong.

Exactly Fred, I was surprised by some of the earlier comments, when I originally commented, some appeared to feel it was acceptable for operators to act in these ways, such is the brainwashing that has taken place.

 

[najaB]

Then they have a valid ticket, not other authority.

Not 100% in agreement but fair enough. However, I still think that the legislation isn't the place for specifying the form that the authority must take as there are situations where it might not be practical to provide written authority.

An example, cancellation of one service means that there are dozens of people who need to be given permission to travel on another service leaving in a few minutes. With a proscription against giving verbal permission, station staff can't just make an announcement - with written permission being mandatory under law they have only a few minutes to stamp and endorse everyone's tickets.

Edit: For clarity - I agree that permission should normally be in written form, I just believe that is best enshrined in TOC/RDG policy rather than legislation.

 

[rs101]

Not 100% in agreement but fair enough. However, I still think that the legislation isn't the place for specifying the form that the authority must take as there are situations where it might not be practical to provide written authority.

An example, cancellation of one service means that there are dozens of people who need to be given permission to travel on another service leaving in a few minutes. With a proscription against giving verbal permission, station staff can't just make an announcement - with written permission being mandatory under law they have only a few minutes to stamp and endorse everyone's tickets.

Edit: For clarity - I agree that permission should normally be in written form, I just believe that is best enshrined in TOC/RDG policy rather than legislation.

Simple fix for your example. The fact they made that announcement must be recorded in some durable method (eg email sent internally confirming it, activity log at the station, etc).
I assume some other regular tasks carried out by these staff have existing audit trails already?

I'd pefer the legislation require the TOC to be required to keep a record of all permission given and it be down to the TOC as to how to implement it.

 

[najaB]

I'd pefer the legislation require the TOC to be required to keep a record of all permission given and it be down to the TOC as to how to implement it.

We're agreed that permission should be recorded. One more reason why I think it should be policy rather than legislation: it is a lot easier to amend policy than legislation as technology changes.

 

[rs101]

We're agreed that permission should be recorded. One more reason why I think it should be policy rather than legislation: it is a lot easier to amend policy than legislation as technology changes.

I'd much prefer the legislation state that all permission be recorded and the detail as to exactly how it was done to be left to the TOC's policy/ NRCOT .

 

[najaB]

I'd much prefer the legislation state that all permission be recorded and the detail as to exactly how it was done to be left to the TOC's policy/ NRCOT .

Then to meet in the middle, rather than adding the word 'written' as suggested above, something like:

(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket. Such permission should be written, where this is not practical a record must be made by the authorised person.

 

[miami]

even if I do think my ticket was actually valid, am I really going to spend the time and what may well come to hundreds of pounds going to solicitors and taking it to court in order to recover £10?

Quite. I was refused travel on the 1840 once because 'I'm not allowed to travel from London to Manchester with a London to Edinburgh ticket". I travelled on the 1900 which was only a few minute later arriving at my destination, however I was far less comfortable (the main reason I went for the 1840 was because it's a quieter train). I didn't go to court about this because life is too short, and the railway already steals enough of my time. My complaint was simply ignored.

Perhaps some airline style denied boarding compensation should be due in these cases when the railway makes a mistake (either threatening people with prosecution, denying boarding, throwing them off the train, or issuing unpaid fare notices), something like £100 for a journey under 1 hour, £250 for 1-4 hours, and £500 for a journey over 4 hours. Note that's journey, not delay. That would encourage the TOCs to actually get it right first time, every time.

Exactly Fred, I was surprised by some of the earlier comments

I wasn't.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps some airline style denied boarding compensation should be due in these cases when the railway makes a mistake (either threatening people with prosecution, denying boarding, throwing them off the train, or issuing unpaid fare notices), something like £100 for a journey under 1 hour, £250 for 1-4 hours, and £500 for a journey over 4 hours. Note that's journey, not delay. That would encourage the TOCs to actually get it right first time, every time.

It's interesting to read continued demands for this kind of redress. I support it wholly, at least in principle.

The question is, how does that kind of thing actually work? With an airline, every passenger has a reservation, and airlines have to keep records of who has or hasn't boarded from the passenger manifest.

How would you prove you were denied boarding on an Off-Peak Return?

 

[Parham Wood]

The sensible answer to this is that all staff with such authority should carry a pad and a stamp, and write out precisely what they are authorising and stamp it.

The passenger would still be liable if the person stamping the ticket was not authorised to so for the TOC or train they ended up travelling on or was mistaken in what he/she could authorise. It may provide some form of defense but technically they would still have an invalid ticket IMO. Dave Newcastle may be able to come up with other bits of case law that would assist defending prosecution.

 

[najaB]

It may provide some form of defense but technically they would still have an invalid ticket IMO.

It would take an amazingly ballsy prosecutor to take that case to court. I'm reasonably confident that the passenger would not be found guilty. It's a similar situation to how you won't be likely to be found guilty of illegal actions if you believed you were following lawful instructions of a police officer.

 

[Parham Wood]

We're agreed that permission should be recorded. One more reason why I think it should be policy rather than legislation: it is a lot easier to amend policy than legislation as technology changes.

This will not stop those not authorised to give permission giving "permission" as happen now. Although I do agree that it would be a step forward to have something recorded as the law currently stands. How this could be practically done I have doubts.

Potentially easy to record that an announcement has been made but how does a guard on a train do this - record in a log book or electronically? Easy if say, they tell the whole train they can do something but if only a few people need to be endorsed for different routes it could require a lot
of writing. It depends what would be acceptable. It would also not stop a TTI on trains that the newly "authorised" passengers join refusing the validity of the tickets if they had not been advised in advance about it or do not have a means of instantly looking it up. Tracking back the authorisations would generate a large number of jobs unless it was all electronic. Good intention but making it practical is another story I fear.

If you insist on endorsing on the ticket it is easy to do a few but not a whole train load. How do you endorse a season ticket, although normally it would be valid on later trains? It also means that the passenger has to know their ticket must be endorsed and if necessary they would have to seek someone out to endorse it which is another pain for the traveller although better than having a penalty later in their journey.

Just no easy answer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The passenger would still be liable if the person stamping the ticket was not authorised to so for the TOC or train they ended up travelling on or was mistaken in what he/she could authorise.

That depends on the legal force. Ideally, such a stamped authorisation would be valid as written, and (by way of a unique ID number) the appropriate action in the event of it not being valid would be withdraw, replace and disciplinary action/retraining as appropriate for the member of staff concerned.

 

[rs101]

This will not stop those not authorised to give permission giving "permission" as happen now. Although I do agree that it would be a step forward to have something recorded as the law currently stands. How this could be practically done I have doubts.

Potentially easy to record that an announcement has been made but how does a guard on a train do this - record in a log book or electronically? Easy if say, they tell the whole train they can do something but if only a few people need to be endorsed for different routes it could require a lot
of writing. It depends what would be acceptable. It would also not stop a TTI on trains that the newly "authorised" passengers join refusing the validity of the tickets if they had not been advised in advance about it or do not have a means of instantly looking it up. Tracking back the authorisations would generate a large number of jobs unless it was all electronic. Good intention but making it practical is another story I fear.

If you insist on endorsing on the ticket it is easy to do a few but not a whole train load. How do you endorse a season ticket, although normally it would be valid on later trains? It also means that the passenger has to know their ticket must be endorsed and if necessary they would have to seek someone out to endorse it which is another pain for the traveller although better than having a penalty later in their journey.

Just no easy answer.

How does the guard know to make an announcement ? Presumably someone, somewhere tells him to do so.

In the case of the TTI - worst case is he issues penalty fares to passengers which are then cancelled once someone cross checks their claim against the central record of authorised variations.

I don't see why it's not possible to do this electronically, either via batch or real time data transfer. Courier companies, for example, have shown the technology works and is easy to use.

 

[Parham Wood]

We're agreed that permission should be recorded. One more reason why I think it should be policy rather than legislation: it is a lot easier to amend policy than legislation as technology changes.

This will not stop those not authorised to give permission giving "permission" as happen now. Although I do agree that it would be a step forward to have something recorded as the law currently stands. How this could be practically done I have doubts.

Potentially easy to record that an announcement has been made but how does a guard on a train do this - record in a log book or electronically? Easy if say, they tell the whole train they can do something but if only a few people need to be endorsed for different routes it could require a lot
of writing. It depends what would be acceptable. It would also not stop a TTI on trains that the newly "authorised" passengers join refusing the validity of the tickets if they had not been advised in advance about it or do not have a means of instantly looking it up. Tracking back the authorisations would generate a large number of jobs unless it was all electronic. Good intention but making it practical is another story I fear.

If you insist on endorsing on the ticket it is easy to do a few but not a whole train load. How do you endorse a season ticket, although normally it would be valid on later trains? It also means that the passenger has to know their ticket must be endorsed and if necessary they would have to seek someone out to endorse it which is another pain for the traveller although better than having a penalty later in their journey.

Just no easy answer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would take an amazingly ballsy prosecutor to take that case to court. I'm reasonably confident that the passenger would not be found guilty. It's a similar situation to how you won't be likely to be found guilty of illegal actions if you believed you were following lawful instructions of a police officer.

You are not 100% confident and therein lies my point!! Most people would probably settle out of course rather than take the risk. It is a rather pedantic example I know.

 

[najaB]

You are not 100% confident and therein lies my point!! Most people would probably settle out of course rather than take the risk. It is a rather pedantic example I know.

The only reason I didn't say that I was 100% confident is because there's no way you can accurately say will happen in a given Court on a given day.

 

[miami]

The only reason I didn't say that I was 100% confident is because there's no way you can accurately say will happen in a given Court on a given day.

Having to turn up to court, heck having to respond to a letter, is already a punishment, and costs real amounts of money, even setting aside the time penalty.

 

[Agent_c]

You missed the "criminal negligence" bit, i.e. doing something that a reasonable person would have realised would be likely to kill or seriously injure. Costing the railway a few quid simply isn't serious enough to be anywhere near that bracket.



Yes, I always prefer there to be false negatives than even one false positive. But as I said I'd replace it with a system of civil penalty fares enforced through civil courts for Byelaw-type cases similar to parking offences. Pay your fifty quid plus fare, and that's it done with - no fear of criminal records, just civil compensation. Ensure that the actual sum chosen covers all losses from fare dodging. The end, stop worrying about it.

Except you would never have a positive. The train company would never be able to prove you didn't "lose your ticket en route"

 

[Ediswan]

And reissue how many millions of photocards that don't meet the newly-added checksum?

No need, there is a standard IT way of handling such migrations. You don't just add a digit. You change the arrangemet of numbers and letters so that, even with reasonable transcription errors, it is always clear whether the 'number' is in the old format or new. TVMs etc. can then tell whether or not there should be a valid checksum and act accordingly. Allow anybody who wants to trade-in old for new to do so (I doubt many would). After a few years (three?) all cards are in the new format.

However, given the size of the problem (small) and the costs of making such a change (not small), I can't see it happening as a standalone change. It might come as part of a migration to some form of machine readable railcard, with this checksum being available for any residual scenarios where manual entry was still required.

 

[swj99]

Doh, its a joke mate, but seriously I can`t help but feel the balance is wrong

I reckon you're right there. I know the railways have got to catch the con artists, but it does seem a bit one sided at times.

My right what? Incidentally, please don't call me Lol.

I'd be offended if someone called me Lol as well. Especially as she's a bird and I'm not.

There must be a lot of people called Lol on the internet. And Tia, whoever she is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except you would never have a positive. The train company would never be able to prove you didn't "lose your ticket en route"

Which is why simple ticketless travel would be decriminalised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[philthetube]

on a London Glasgow service presumably the non criminal penalty would have to be at least £250 or it would always be worth chancing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

on a London Glasgow service presumably the non criminal penalty would have to be at least £250 or it would always be worth chancing.

On a London to Glasgow service the chance of a check is very high, so 50 or 80 quid on top of the fare would seem fine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[najaB]

On a London to Glasgow service the chance of a check is very high, so 50 or 80 quid on top of the fare would seem fine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

High, not very high. On more than one occasion my ticket has not been checked.

 

[miami]

High, not very high. On more than one occasion my ticket has not been checked.

and this is the passengers fault that the toc couldn't arrange for a ticket check over a 4 hour period?

Clearly they arent that concerned about losing revenue

 

[najaB]

and this is the passengers fault that the toc couldn't arrange for a ticket check over a 4 hour period?

Who said anything about fault?

 

[radamfi]

The problem here is that it is still possible to get season tickets on paper. Other countries have replaced or are in the process of replacing them with smartcards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

High, not very high. On more than one occasion my ticket has not been checked.

But if it was, 80 quid (that you couldn't claim on expenses) is a pretty hefty whack, is it not? It's still 80 quid, even if the fare is much higher. Having to pay the actual fare at the full single rate (rather than an Advance or Off Peak) is still a whack on its own!

I would, however, suspect fare-dodging on a route like that is minimal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem here is that it is still possible to get season tickets on paper. Other countries have replaced or are in the process of replacing them with smartcards.

Not aware of Germany doing that, and their revenue protection model wouldn't make it useful anyway.