Ticket office queries

[Philip]

I'm interested to hear the views of people regarding a couple of grey areas which booking staff are faced with regularly nowadays.

First scenario: A passenger has booked an advance ticket for a journey of reasonable length, travelling with a different TOC to the one the ticket office clerk works for. However, due to "road works", the passenger misses their booked train. Taking into context the aspects of revenue, customer service (particularly in this mobile technology era and the 'customer always right' climate) and how it will affect the guard on the next available train, should the clerk either wave the passenger through to the train saying "speak to the guard and I'm sure it'll be fine"; excess the ticket even though it is beyond the time of their original departure; ring the control of the TOC in question to try and give authority to travel without the need to pay again; or simply say "the ticket is no longer valid and because it wasn't railway disruption which caused you to miss your booked train, you will have to buy a new ticket to travel, I'm sorry". Which course of action would be better do you feel?

Second scenario: A passenger wants to buy a single and travel to a minor station which only has SDS or CDS available. However, the next station is a major one and has advance singles available set by the local operator who run this particular service. If the passenger is offered the advance single to the next station along, it saves them £10. However, the T&Cs of advance tickets state that there should be no break of journey between the origin and destination on the ticket. Regardless of whether there is known to be a roving revenue block at stations along this line, should the clerk bend the rules a bit to save the passenger a large amount of money, or should the clerk stick by the T&Cs of the cheap tickets, and not lose revenue?

Interested to hear people's thoughts!

 

[voyagerdude220]

Personally I'd say for the first one the customer needs to buy a new ticket, but I'd have a look to see if I can work out what the cheapest ticket would be for their journey.

For the second scenario I wouldn't normally sell the cheaper Advance fare unless I was certain that the customer would be able to use it and not potentially get questioned at their destination. As much as I'd want to save them money, I'd feel awful if my intended favour resulted in the customer being penalised for having the wrong ticket.

 

[Gems]

Question 1. If I bought a cheap ticket for a airline flight and didn't allow enough time to get to the airport with time to spare, it's kinda tough. The railway is no different. Might seem harsh, but where do you draw the line? Roadworks, Traffic accident, great aunt Gerty losing her phone, or the dog swallowing the car keys. The list of reasons could be endless.

Question 2. If you ended the journey at point A. And never bothered to try and complete it to point B. Who the hell could stop you buying a ticket to a cheaper location further down the same line?

No doubt somebody will come along with a list of rules. But only fools blindly follow rules, wise men use them for guidance.

 

[Craig1122]

First scenario, sorry but in the nicest possible way your ticket is no longer valid. Excess fare or new ticket as appropriate. Different if the delay is due to rail disruption but as the poster above says where would you draw the line with other reasons?

Second scenario, certainly wouldn't offer it as the ticket isn't valid. The odds are they wouldn't be penalised but you don't know that and if they were would have every right to be aggrieved at being sold the ticket. If they were aware of the lower priced ticket and requested that 'I think I'll just carry on to X station and get a lift' or similar then that's up to them if they want to take the chance.

 

[142blue]

Scenario 1. New ticket. Investigate claim if say it's a motorway crash recently and then I'd ring our control to email it out. Best case option is excess to next available fare.

Scenario 2 goes against impartiality and ticket retailing rules. I'll sell what you ask for as how do I know you are not a mystery shopper?

 

[Andy Pacer]

I'm interested to hear the views of people regarding a couple of grey areas which booking staff are faced with regularly nowadays.

First scenario: A passenger has booked an advance ticket for a journey of reasonable length, travelling with a different TOC to the one the ticket office clerk works for. However, due to "road works", the passenger misses their booked train. Taking into context the aspects of revenue, customer service (particularly in this mobile technology era and the 'customer always right' climate) and how it will affect the guard on the next available train, should the clerk either wave the passenger through to the train saying "speak to the guard and I'm sure it'll be fine"; excess the ticket even though it is beyond the time of their original departure; ring the control of the TOC in question to try and give authority to travel without the need to pay again; or simply say "the ticket is no longer valid and because it wasn't railway disruption which caused you to miss your booked train, you will have to buy a new ticket to travel, I'm sorry". Which course of action would be better do you feel?

Second scenario: A passenger wants to buy a single and travel to a minor station which only has SDS or CDS available. However, the next station is a major one and has advance singles available set by the local operator who run this particular service. If the passenger is offered the advance single to the next station along, it saves them £10. However, the T&Cs of advance tickets state that there should be no break of journey between the origin and destination on the ticket. Regardless of whether there is known to be a roving revenue block at stations along this line, should the clerk bend the rules a bit to save the passenger a large amount of money, or should the clerk stick by the T&Cs of the cheap tickets, and not lose revenue?

Interested to hear people's thoughts!

Can you please define SDS and CDS bearing in mind the following extract from the Forum Rules:

• Please remember many members do not understand rail “jargon” (including acronyms, station codes and specialist terms). Such terms should be correctly defined the first time they are used; codes and abbreviations must not be made up.

 

[Philip]

Can you please define SDS and CDS bearing in mind the following extract from the Forum Rules:

• Please remember many members do not understand rail “jargon” (including acronyms, station codes and specialist terms). Such terms should be correctly defined the first time they are used; codes and abbreviations must not be made up.

Standard day single and cheap day (off peak) single.

 

[Andy Pacer]

Standard day single and cheap day (off peak) single.

Interesting, thanks for that. I was wondering about off peak but couldn't work out how it related to CDS! Nonetheless and interesting scenario and I guess a lot of it is down to the persona of the ticket office clerk. I once had an experience of one in Shrewsbury trying to save me money but what she was suggesting wasn't valid!

 

[Deafdoggie]

As a passenger, I'd rather the clerk was honest in a nice way. Don't gruffly say "it's your fault, buy a new ticket" but rather, "I'm afraid the best I can do is sell you this ticket for £XX. If you wanted to you could contact customer services afterwards and ask if they'll refund some of the cost, but I can't guarantee they will. Or I can let you onto the platform and you can ask the guard if they'll let you travel. Again, I can't guarantee it, and if they don't you'll have to buy a ticket off them for £YY"
In the second scenario I don't want to be sold an invalid ticket. Sell me the cheapest valid ticket. I was once sold a return as it was cheaper than a single, even though I asked for a single. But it was, of course, valid.

 

[robbeech]

If the ticket office staff has authority to permit travel on another service, regardless of operator and they do so then this should be honoured by the guard(s). If they gave permission and did not have authority then this should not be the passenger’s problem and the passenger should be allowed to travel, told that they should not (for future reference) and an internal discussion happen. Of course in the real world we see staff members saying “yes you may board this train” and the passenger ending up in court.

So what should happen? The passenger has missed their train through no fault of the railway and as such their ticket is invalid. At a busy station with lots of trains in the right direction it wouldn’t be the end of the world for them to recommend asking the guard of the next service before boarding on the grounds that if they say no they won’t have too long to wait for the next one and can have purchased a new ticket in the meantime. This wouldn’t be acceptable if there was half an hour + wait between services although it would largely be up to the passenger to decide how long they were prepared to wait. If ticket office staff wish to excess the ticket rather than sell a whole new one then that is at their discretion. We could argue there could be clear rules on this but we’re that to be the case the rules would be in favour of the railway so passengers would lose out.

The second scenario seems much simpler and clear cut. If some asks for a ticket you can sell it to them. If they use that in an inappropriate manner that’s of no concern to ticket office staff.

If they ask for the right ticket and there’s one that’s cheaper but invalid on the face of the rules then you must not sell them that instead and I would suggest fairly strong disciplinary action for any staff doing this. They’re playing with people’s livelihoods by doing this as the person could* end up in court as a result of these actions.


* I appreciate the internal knowledge base (IKB) suggests not to penalise passengers stopping short on advances but the railway aren’t well known for following rules that are passenger focussed and the passenger facing rules they’re allowed to read prohibit this scenario.

 

[Andy Pacer]

* I appreciate the ikb suggests not to penalise passengers stopping short on advances but the railway aren’t well known for following rules that are passenger focussed and the passenger facing rules they’re allowed to read prohibit this scenario.

Can you please define 'ikb' ...

 

[robbeech]

Can you please define 'ikb' ...

I thought it had already been referenced in this thread but must be mistaken.

Internal knowledge Base. I have edited the post above thanks for pointing it out.

 

[CyrusWuff]

* I appreciate the internal knowledge base (IKB) suggests not to penalise passengers stopping short on advances but the railway aren’t well known for following rules that are passenger focussed and the passenger facing rules they’re allowed to read prohibit this scenario.

There's a caveat to that in that it only applies where there's no intent to deny the TOC revenue.

For example, an Advance from Marylebone to Solihull will generally be the same price as one from London to Birmingham Moor Street on the same train, so nobody should have an issue with someone stopping short at Solihull with a ticket to Birmingham.

For another Chiltern example, however, they don't sell Advances between Marylebone and Bicester Village, so would almost certainly object to someone stopping short on a Marylebone to Islip, Oxford Parkway or Oxford Advance.

 

[Rob Gibson]

There's a caveat to that in that it only applies where there's no intent to deny the TOC revenue.

For example, an Advance from Marylebone to Solihull will generally be the same price as one from London to Birmingham Moor Street on the same train, so nobody should have an issue with someone stopping short at Solihull with a ticket to Birmingham.

For another Chiltern example, however, they don't sell Advances between Marylebone and Bicester Village, so would almost certainly object to someone stopping short on a Marylebone to Islip, Oxford Parkway or Oxford Advance.

Suppose a passenger buys a Marylebone to Islip Advance and Islip to Bicester Village single but is seen alighting short there by a Revenue Inspector, could action be taken?

 

[robbeech]

Suppose a passenger buys a Marylebone to Islip Advance and Islip to Bicester Village single but is seen alighting short there by a Revenue Inspector, could action be taken?

Action can ALWAYS be taken by revenue inspectors.

 

[Rob Gibson]

Action can ALWAYS be taken by revenue inspectors.

The passenger has a valid ticket to Bicester Village, if they weren’t seen alighting from a train going the other way no action could be taken so it would be the passengers word against the Inspectors unless they went to the trouble of getting other staff to give a statement or were quick enough to get CCTV evidence if any.

If it went to a higher Court I wonder if charging more for a shorter journey on the same train would be found unreasonable and unenforceable. How would an ordinary passenger even know it was against the rules?

 

[Watershed]

The passenger has a valid ticket to Bicester Village, if they weren’t seen alighting from a train going the other way no action could be taken so it would be the passengers word against the Inspectors unless they went to the trouble of getting other staff to give a statement or were quick enough to get CCTV evidence if any.

It's not about whether you have a ticket valid for travel to/from the station. It's about whether you have a valid ticket for the train you just got off.

Bicester Village doesn't have a train every couple of minutes. It has a roughly half-hourly service but most of the trains arrive at different times to each other, so it would be fairly obvious which train you have just come off.

Furthermore, not all trains stop at Islip, so if you're asked which train you just got off and you cite a train that hasn't stopped at Islip...

If it went to a higher Court I wonder if charging more for a shorter journey on the same train would be found unreasonable and unenforceable.

Courts don't work based off what is reasonable. They work off what the law is, which can often seem unreasonable.

Though it may seem unreasonable, I do not see any reason why a Court would rule that break of journey restrictions are inherently unenforceable.

How would an ordinary passenger even know it was against the rules?

By reading the terms and conditions they agree to when they buy their ticket.

 

[142blue]

As a passenger, I'd rather the clerk was honest in a nice way. Don't gruffly say "it's your fault, buy a new ticket" but rather, "I'm afraid the best I can do is sell you this ticket for £XX. If you wanted to you could contact customer services afterwards and ask if they'll refund some of the cost, but I can't guarantee they will. Or I can let you onto the platform and you can ask the guard if they'll let you travel. Again, I can't guarantee it, and if they don't you'll have to buy a ticket off them for £YY"
In the second scenario I don't want to be sold an invalid ticket. Sell me the cheapest valid ticket. I was once sold a return as it was cheaper than a single, even though I asked for a single. But it was, of course, valid.

Which puts the guard in a tricky place. You are seen as semi authorizing it rather than dealing with it via new ticket, excess or travel authority.

 

[40129]

Which puts the guard in a tricky place. You are seen as semi authorizing it rather than dealing with it via new ticket, excess or travel authority.

This

 

[clagmonster]

Question 2. If you ended the journey at point A. And never bothered to try and complete it to point B. Who the hell could stop you buying a ticket to a cheaper location further down the same line?

No doubt somebody will come along with a list of rules. But only fools blindly follow rules, wise men use them for guidance.

In theory an RPI at point A could excess the ticket to the appropriate walk up fare. Not sure if there is an offence that can be prosecuted for.

There is a journey I regularly make, Doncaster - Hessle for which there is no advance fare, yet Doncaster - Brough and Doncaster - Hull both have advance fares. Whilst I agree that the rule is stupid, always book an advance to Brough then a walk up from there to Hessle, giving Northern an extra fiver in the process, in case I come across a revenue block staffed by someone with a different outlook to you.

 

[Haywain]

Or I can let you onto the platform and you can ask the guard if they'll let you travel. Again, I can't guarantee it, and if they don't you'll have to buy a ticket off them for £YY

The trouble with that is that as well as just moving the problem, by the time it gets to the guard it is "the person in the booking office said I could get on this train". As mentioned above, it just moves the problem and is usually done because a clerk wishes to avoid the potential conflict from delivering bad news.

I wonder if charging more for a shorter journey on the same train would be found unreasonable and unenforceable.

There are many cases where the normal pricing leads to that happening, so it is entirely enforceable.

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

First scenario: A passenger has booked an advance ticket for a journey of reasonable length, travelling with a different TOC to the one the ticket office clerk works for. However, due to "road works", the passenger misses their booked train.

Not really answering the question, but my fix for this would be to have quota-controlled fares valid on trains up to some time - an hour? - either side of the planned departure. Or perhaps more simply the train before or after on the same route and operator.

Second scenario: A passenger wants to buy a single and travel to a minor station which only has SDS or CDS available. However, the next station is a major one and has advance singles available set by the local operator who run this particular service.

It's the SDS/CDS I'm afraid - but the train operator should look at these inconsistencies and sort out their fare clusters.

 

[Rob Gibson]

The trouble with that is that as well as just moving the problem, by the time it gets to the guard it is "the person in the booking office said I could get on this train". As mentioned above, it just moves the problem and is usually done because a clerk wishes to avoid the potential conflict from delivering bad news.

There are many cases where the normal pricing leads to that happening, so it is entirely enforceable.

The difference is there’s no problem ending the journey short with other tickets. If the railway really wants to enforce the rule then each platform needs a separate ticket barrier.

 

[Haywain]

The difference is there’s no problem ending the journey short with other tickets.

On some, there are restrictions.

 

[jumble]

The trouble with that is that as well as just moving the problem, by the time it gets to the guard it is "the person in the booking office said I could get on this train". As mentioned above, it just moves the problem and is usually done because a clerk wishes to avoid the potential conflict from delivering bad news.

There are many cases where the normal pricing leads to that happening, so it is entirely enforceable.

Well the TOCs could use some common sense which I experienced when in the face of disruption I needed to get someone on an earlier than booked train
The Avanti ticket office issued what they called an ATT ( Authority to travel)
I cannot imagine why this is not standard procedure if a ticket office does give permission to change as it instantly solves any potential issue further down the line

 

[Rob Gibson]

It's not about whether you have a ticket valid for travel to/from the station. It's about whether you have a valid ticket for the train you just got off.

Bicester Village doesn't have a train every couple of minutes. It has a roughly half-hourly service but most of the trains arrive at different times to each other, so it would be fairly obvious which train you have just come off.

Furthermore, not all trains stop at Islip, so if you're asked which train you just got off and you cite a train that hasn't stopped at Islip...


Courts don't work based off what is reasonable. They work off what the law is, which can often seem unreasonable.

Though it may seem unreasonable, I do not see any reason why a Court would rule that break of journey restrictions are inherently unenforceable.


By reading the terms and conditions they agree to when they buy their ticket.

In principle at many busy stations there’s no way to link an exiting passenger to a specific train. If there are toilets on a platform then that could account for a delayed exit.

Courts can and do make changes to the law when they see a situation that defies reason or natural justice exactly like this. A ticket that was perfectly valid on the train suddenly becomes invalid by alighting after travelling fewer miles than the ticket allows, what nonsense.

Of course everyone reads and understands all Terms & Conditions before making any purchase...not! Haven’t there been consumer cases where daft T&Cs have been ruled invalid.

 

[Haywain]

Well the TOCs could use some common sense which I experienced when in the face of disruption I needed to get someone on an earlier than booked train
The Avanti ticket office issued what they called an ATT ( Authority to travel)
I cannot imagine why this is not standard procedure if a ticket office does give permission to change as it instantly solves any potential issue further down the line

The problem is where this hasn't been done for one reason or another.

 

[jumble]

The problem is where this hasn't been done for one reason or another.

A few mystery shopper visits would soon sort out ticket office clerks who are not complying with the rules but it will never happen

 

[Haywain]

A few mystery shopper visits would soon sort out ticket office clerks who are not complying with the rules but it will never happen

The rules are that if you miss a train through no fault of the railway, you buy a new ticket. The example that I originally responded to was a suggestion that being told to ask the guard in those circumstances may yield a different result. I am not sure saying that to the customer is "not complying with the rules" even if it is unhelpful to both guard and customer.

 

[XAM2175]

A ticket that was perfectly valid on the train suddenly becomes invalid by alighting after travelling fewer miles than the ticket allows, what nonsense.

It would be nonsense if the sole measure used to price the ticket was mileage, yes. Given that that's not the case for the vast majority of tickets in GB, it's not quite so clear-cut.