TOC claims ticket is tampered with

[Tazi Hupefi]

If the delay was on 01/02 I think you might have a slightly (but still small) chance at getting Delay Repay, as that is the only potential date which doesn't look fraudulent.

However, I think cutting your losses here is the best approach. If you provoke them too much further, they may just pass it to the railway police as a potential fraud. As a "normal" railway user, I think it's highly suspicious, and I suspect most ordinary people would have a similar view. I also think you're quite lucky this is in Scotland, because from what you read on here and elsewhere, the likes of Thameslink and Transport Investigations would have happily sent you to the gallows!

 

[_toommm_]

From looking at the date boxes, it looks like the OP may have put the day of the month (in this case 29) in the month box by accident (one across from where it should have gone), and this has been subsequently corrected (either by the OP or by a guard). The ‘1’ in the second ‘day’ box looks to be from the previous error, where a month was put in the wrong box.

In my opinion, this doesn’t look to be malicious, merely an oversight.

 

[NSB2017]

Can you explain your thinking: Why does a lack of ticketing facilities prevent you from personally dating a ticket you already have?

Potentially the OP has no arms/hands/ability to grip a pen? Plausible.

 

[Haywain]

he OP posts something and we give advice in good faith based on that.

Those saying "let it lie" are giving advice in good faith.

 

[Fokx]

The only date valid on that ticket is the third date of “31/01” The other three dates are invalid for travel

Both the first and second dates look altered in some way or another and the forth is missing the “01” instead of “1”. All dates MUST be in xx/xx format

 

[Tetchytyke]

Those saying "let it lie" are giving advice in good faith.

Perhaps.

But those accusing him of ticket fraud are not.

 

[30907]

Right, so we should second guess everything that an OP tells us, because they're probably lying, and tell them to be happy that they're not at the mercy of the Lord Advocate giving permission for ScotRail to bring a prosecution?

No. We should challenge inconsistencies in a story - rather than leave them to be challenged by "the law." The same applies, of course, when it is "the railway" that tells a story with inconsistencies in it.

PS @Tetchytyke no-one has made an accusation of fraud - some posters have said that there is the appearance of fraud. A subtle but important difference.

 

[CrispyUK]

I would suspect that the OP wrote '29' in the first month box by mistake, this would be an entirely plausible error if you have not used a flexi rover before and it wasn't explained when the ticket was purchased. Having numbers (1,2,3,4) pre-printed in the date boxes could lead a passenger to think they shouldn't add anything into these boxes, but only the empty ones.

This looks like it has then been corrected by a guard (on the basis that the pen and style of writing are completely different).

The second date boxes definitely look dodgy, was a 1 written here in error by the OP on the first day of use, is it just a slip where trying to get a dodgy pen to show up properly, was it originally dated for the 30th and then adjusted to try and use the same box for the 31st? Impossible to say with just the information we have here.

The second coupon could be far better designed for rovers valid for 3 of / 4 of X days to make them much more obvious and user-friendly for an uninitiated passenger to complete, but I am guessing this is just a standard design used for anything that requires up to 16 date boxes.

'FLEXI ROVER TRAVEL DATES' printed at the bottom of the second coupon seems somewhat redundant (the top line could instead read FLEXI ROVER TRAVEL DATE BOXES and the line at the bottom used to print a short clarification/instruction that the passenger must complete a date box before travel on each day).

On a related note, is there any mechanism/procedure avaialble for a passenger that has made a genuine mistake on the date boxes coupon, to get this rectified in a way that doesn't leave the ticket looking like it has been tampered with? If a passenger approached a ticket office and explained they had messed up their date boxes, let's say it was first thing in the morning and not fully awake they had written tomorrow's date by mistake instead of the current date, could the ticket office reprint the dates coupon for that rover, copy across the dates from the original coupon, etc - or is it a case of tough luck?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Could all the possible dates of ticket validity be pre-printed on the counterpart, and then "activated" for use by ticking (in permanent ink) in the relevant date box?

 

[some bloke]

is there any mechanism/procedure avaialble for a passenger that has made a genuine mistake on the date boxes coupon, to get this rectified in a way that doesn't leave the ticket looking like it has been tampered with?

Guards could certify it on the back or on a separate piece of paper, identifying themselves?

 

[Kilopylae]

Guards could certify it on the back or on a separate piece of paper, identifying themselves?

Good luck finding a guard willing to do that...

 

[Hadders]

Guards could certify it on the back or on a separate piece of paper, identifying themselves?

There is an endorsements box on the back of the ticket which could be used in such circumstances.

 

[Tetchytyke]

PS @Tetchytyke no-one has made an accusation of fraud - some posters have said that there is the appearance of fraud. A subtle but important difference.

Leaving aside semantics, you'll find @Tazi Hupefi did.

 

[MotCO]

I'm struggling to see the 'fraudalent' aspect of this ticket. The ticket was purchased on 28th January, and the OP has used it for the 4 consecutive days after that. I agree it looks a bit messy, but where is the 'fraud'? (I'm assuming that the delay claim was for one of these four days.)

 

[PupCuff]

I'm struggling to see the 'fraudalent' aspect of this ticket. The ticket was purchased on 28th January, and the OP has used it for the 4 consecutive days after that. I agree it looks a bit messy, but where is the 'fraud'? (I'm assuming that the delay claim was for one of these four days.)

Basically the potential for using these tickets fraudulently is, when you buy a 4 in 8 rover (or carnet or whatever), don't date the box and board the train. When the conductor comes round on 28.01, you show him the ticket and see if he bothers to check the date box. If he doesn't, great, you can put the next day in the first box and you have an extra day. Next day, you do the same, and if you're pulled up then you go "whoops, aren't I a silly, can I borrow your pen?" and 29.01 gets filled in. Next day you do the same and end up having to write 30.01 in. After that day, you scribble on the ticket to make the 30.01 look ambiguously like a 31.01 and if nobody pulls you up on it, or accepts your claim that you just made a hash of writing "31.01", you've got an extra day. Continue as needed up to the validity of the ticket.

It's a reasonably common attempt at evading the fare and many such instances are picked up and no doubt many prosecuted each year. Whether or not that was the OP's intention it should be a lesson to the OP that such attempts at fare evasion/ticket misuse in this manner by less than honest customers do regularly take place, to take more care when completing such boxes, and if a mistake is made speaking to a member of staff as soon as possible to see if anything can be done to correct it (eg if you've written something which looks like 31.01 on the 30.01, a member of staff may be willing to verify that that box was used on that date and endorse the ticket as such with a ticket office stamp etc).

Rail staff aren't out to victimise people who have made mistakes, there's enough people deliberately intending to evade their fare for that, but equally revenue protection officers are tasked with detecting such misuse of tickets and when presented with a ticket that looks as clearly overwritten as the one in the OP the reality is that they're likely to be asking a few questions and most likely having the ticket off the customer to be investigated further.

 

[MotCO]

Basically the potential for using these tickets fraudulently is, when you buy a 4 in 8 rover (or carnet or whatever), don't date the box and board the train. When the conductor comes round on 28.01, you show him the ticket and see if he bothers to check the date box. If he doesn't, great, you can put the next day in the first box and you have an extra day. Next day, you do the same, and if you're pulled up then you go "whoops, aren't I a silly, can I borrow your pen?" and 29.01 gets filled in. Next day you do the same and end up having to write 30.01 in. After that day, you scribble on the ticket to make the 30.01 look ambiguously like a 31.01 and if nobody pulls you up on it, or accepts your claim that you just made a hash of writing "31.01", you've got an extra day. Continue as needed up to the validity of the ticket.

It's a reasonably common attempt at evading the fare and many such instances are picked up and no doubt many prosecuted each year. Whether or not that was the OP's intention it should be a lesson to the OP that such attempts at fare evasion/ticket misuse in this manner by less than honest customers do regularly take place, to take more care when completing such boxes, and if a mistake is made speaking to a member of staff as soon as possible to see if anything can be done to correct it (eg if you've written something which looks like 31.01 on the 30.01, a member of staff may be willing to verify that that box was used on that date and endorse the ticket as such with a ticket office stamp etc).

Rail staff aren't out to victimise people who have made mistakes, there's enough people deliberately intending to evade their fare for that, but equally revenue protection officers are tasked with detecting such misuse of tickets and when presented with a ticket that looks as clearly overwritten as the one in the OP the reality is that they're likely to be asking a few questions and most likely having the ticket off the customer to be investigated further.

I understand that, but the ticket presented for delay repay showed 4 consecutive days 'validated' the day after the ticket was purchased. If the claim for delay repay was for one of these four days, where's the 'fraud'? It's not as though the OP chose 4 random days which best suited his claim for delay repay. It's not as though four random days were selected to match those days when challenged by a ticket collector. So where is the 'fraud'?

 

[PupCuff]

I understand that, but the ticket presented for delay repay showed 4 consecutive days 'validated' the day after the ticket was purchased. If the claim for delay repay was for one of these four days, where's the 'fraud'? It's not as though the OP chose 4 random days which best suited his claim for delay repay. It's not as though four random days were selected to match those days when challenged by a ticket collector. So where is the 'fraud'?

The potential fraud is in the misuse of the ticket. Only the OP here knows whether he was deliberately evading the fare or whether he simply had the bad luck to end up with a ticket looking as suspicious as it does. The expectation of delay repay is that you submit a valid ticket and you will get compensation; I don't blame ScotRail for refusing, I agree it's clearly been tampered with (I'm of the opinion no reasonable person could suggest the dates have not been overwritten in at least two of the four boxes) it and if it was in England it would almost certainly have been passed to the revenue protection teams to investigate further. Even if they back down and pay out ScotRail will be (assuming competence) looking at any subsequent claims from the OP like a hawk, suspicious claims do get flagged up. If any previous claims have been made by the OP in similar circumstances this could also add weight to their refusal in this instance.

If the OP doesn't have a history of submitting questionable Delay Repay claims, and genuinely was no point attempting to dodge his fare, I would suggest attempting to amicably resolve the issue by appealing the decision with ScotRail and including a short summary of what journeys were made with the rover and on what dates, if it was the first time using a rover of this type explaining that they have since learned that the date has to be entered clearly, legibly and without alteration prior to boarding the first train etc and any justification for the overwriting (eg dyslexia, poor vision, dodgy pen, et cetera) in order to reassure them that the miscompletion of the ticket was unintended, did not represent a loss to them and won't happen again.

 

[robbeech]

From looking at the date boxes, it looks like the OP may have put the day of the month (in this case 29) in the month box by accident (one across from where it should have gone), and this has been subsequently corrected (either by the OP or by a guard). The ‘1’ in the second ‘day’ box looks to be from the previous error, where a month was put in the wrong box.

In my opinion, this doesn’t look to be malicious, merely an oversight.

I came to that conclusion when I first saw it. 29 is clearly written in the ‘month’ box for day 1. And the 30 that looks like a 31 seems to be a 1 with 30 written over it.
it makes a lot of sense, what does NOT make sense is why, if this is the case, the OP hasn’t said that. If you had made a genuine mistake like that and the guard had to write it in properly, why did they not say that in the first post. Additionally, I don’t feel it is in any way acceptable for a guard to over write this in this way, certainly not without providing further information for the passenger to show future guards. how many guards here would have accepted that on the 29th (when 1 is filled in on day 2) after a guard has overwritten it? What about a guard on the second day when there are 2, edited and overwritten dates on there (as that’s what they are, edited and overwritten, though unlikely maliciously of course).

Good luck finding a guard willing to do that...

There is an endorsements box on the back of the ticket which could be used in such circumstances.

I would assume that the bulk of the guards that are willing to do this are on this forum nodding their heads suggesting that is reasonable.

Rail staff aren't out to victimise people who have made mistakes,

Have you been on the railway?
the whole concept of the penalty fare system is partially based on teaching people a lesson who have made a genuine mistake.

 

[MotCO]

The potential fraud is in the misuse of the ticket. Only the OP here knows whether he was deliberately evading the fare or whether he simply had the bad luck to end up with a ticket looking as suspicious as it does. The expectation of delay repay is that you submit a valid ticket and you will get compensation; I don't blame ScotRail for refusing, I agree it's clearly been tampered with (I'm of the opinion no reasonable person could suggest the dates have not been overwritten in at least two of the four boxes) it and if it was in England it would almost certainly have been passed to the revenue protection teams to investigate further. Even if they back down and pay out ScotRail will be (assuming competence) looking at any subsequent claims from the OP like a hawk, suspicious claims do get flagged up. If any previous claims have been made by the OP in similar circumstances this could also add weight to their refusal in this instance.

If the OP doesn't have a history of submitting questionable Delay Repay claims, and genuinely was no point attempting to dodge his fare, I would suggest attempting to amicably resolve the issue by appealing the decision with ScotRail and including a short summary of what journeys were made with the rover and on what dates, if it was the first time using a rover of this type explaining that they have since learned that the date has to be entered clearly, legibly and without alteration prior to boarding the first train etc and any justification for the overwriting (eg dyslexia, poor vision, dodgy pen, et cetera) in order to reassure them that the miscompletion of the ticket was unintended, did not represent a loss to them and won't happen again.

Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but if the OP has a ticket for four consecutive days, starting the day after he bought it, how can the ticket be misused? The OP has not chosen random dates. It would look as though the OP has chosen to holiday in Scotland for 4 days, and he has a ticket for these four days. The ticket looks messy, but should not distract from someone who appears to have gone on a four-day wander which is backed up by this ticket.

 

[Fokx]

The

Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but if the OP has a ticket for four consecutive days, starting the day after he bought it, how can the ticket be misused? The OP has not chosen random dates. It would look as though the OP has chosen to holiday in Scotland for 4 days, and he has a ticket for these four days. The ticket looks messy, but should not distract from someone who appears to have gone on a four-day wander which is backed up by this ticket.

It’s a 4 in 8 day ticket.

You do not have to use it consecutively, you pick the days of validity by putting the correct date in the box (and if you make a mistake or overwrite on a date, that box becomes invalid, is non- refundable and not valid for travel).

 

[Fokx]

The potential fraud is in the misuse of the ticket. Only the OP here knows whether he was deliberately evading the fare or whether he simply had the bad luck to end up with a ticket looking as suspicious as it does. The expectation of delay repay is that you submit a valid ticket and you will get compensation; I don't blame ScotRail for refusing, I agree it's clearly been tampered with (I'm of the opinion no reasonable person could suggest the dates have not been overwritten in at least two of the four boxes) it and if it was in England it would almost certainly have been passed to the revenue protection teams to investigate further. .

Completely agree 100% with this.

I would consider myself a fairly reasonable conductor who tries to use common sense, but if I were presented that particular ticket by day 3 or 4 I would be issuing a Ticket Irregularity Report (TIR) and would send a photo of the ticket to revenue.

One mistake is reasonable but there’s at least three on that ticket alone not even including the fact the OP didn’t fill in the boxes PRIOR to travel, a condition of the rover. It is beyond unreasonable doubt that the ticket has not been filled in correctly and is not valid for three of the four days used.

I think the OP is quite lucky that they were able to use it without problems let alone submit it for delay repay (but again just my view).

 

[SteveM70]

Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but if the OP has a ticket for four consecutive days, starting the day after he bought it, how can the ticket be misused? The OP has not chosen random dates. It would look as though the OP has chosen to holiday in Scotland for 4 days, and he has a ticket for these four days. The ticket looks messy, but should not distract from someone who appears to have gone on a four-day wander which is backed up by this ticket.

Because the possibility exists that on day 2 of use, the 30th, 31 was written in the second date box. If it hadn’t been spotted, the ticket could have been used again the following day without entering a third date. I’m not saying that was the intention, I’m saying that could have happened

 

[fishquinn]

The

It’s a 4 in 8 day ticket.

You do not have to use it consecutively, you pick the days of validity by putting the correct date in the box (and if you make a mistake or overwrite on a date, that box becomes invalid, is non- refundable and not valid for travel).

It's a 4 in 8 ticket yes but the ticket has been dated for the 4 consecutive days beginning with the purchase day so there is zero benefit to the customer here. If a day were missed out (eg. 28/01, 29/01, 31/01, 01/02) then I'd get your point but even if it looks messy then there's no fraud here because it couldn't possibly have been used in an invalid way.

 

[Mak1981]

One potential way it could have thought to be fraud would be claiming for delay repay on the 30th, if 29th filled in then 31st and then realised could have had a large delay on the 30th but didn't travel and had already filled in the 31st so it may have been advantageous to change the 31 to a 30

Also another factor which could look slight suspect is the fact that the ticket was printed less than an hour before one of a handful of daily trains from oban on the 28th

Now there's not any evidence that any of what I suggest actually happened just putting an alternative theory out there

 

[philthetube]

There is only the ops word that the second date was written in before travel was made and not after revenue got involved, regardless of guilt or innocence it is time to give up on this one and feel happy that it is not being considered for prosecution.

Right, so we should second guess everything that an OP tells us, because they're probably lying, and tell them to be happy that they're not at the mercy of the Lord Advocate giving permission for ScotRail to bring a prosecution?

And that is all that is required. The OP posts something and we give advice in good faith based on that. If the OP is not telling the truth then that's on them.

FWIW both 30/1 and 31/1 are listed on the ticket, so quite what scam is taking place is beyond me.

I am not saying that the ticket was, or wasn't tampered with, however it looks as if it might have been.

My opinion is that it would be a waste of time pursuing anything concerning this ticket and having some of the other threads on there,people have been prosecuted over far more minor things than this.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I am not saying that the ticket was, or wasn't tampered with, however it looks as if it might have been.

My opinion is that it would be a waste of time pursuing anything concerning this ticket and having some of the other threads on there,people have been prosecuted over far more minor things than this.

Again, you are aware that this is taking place in Scotland? So either the BTP would need to pursue it, or the Lord Advocate would need to give permission for ScotRail to do so. Neither is going to happen.

The overwriting is not helpful by any means but neither is it fatal to any claim. The suggestion that OP should be grateful they weren't TIRed demonstrates, yet again, just how much is wrong with the attitude to customer service the rail industry has.

 

[30907]

"Good customer service" might include guards writing in dates (as they seem to have done, if I understand the OP correctly) rather than issuing a TIR.
It might also include issuing a TIR - in the interests of all fare/taxpayers.

However, as a TIR was not issued, and there is no proof of fraud (because the ticket was used on consecutive days*) it is harsh of Scotrail to reject the claim.
(*I am aware it could have been used, undated, on the day of issue, but neither we nor Scotrail can know this.)

 

[MotCO]

It's a 4 in 8 ticket yes but the ticket has been dated for the 4 consecutive days beginning with the purchase day so there is zero benefit to the customer here. If a day were missed out (eg. 28/01, 29/01, 31/01, 01/02) then I'd get your point but even if it looks messy then there's no fraud here because it couldn't possibly have been used in an invalid way.

Exactly my point I have been trying to get across.

 

[Mak1981]

Again if only partially used ie used on 29th then on 31st and both those first two boxes filled in, then realises there was a juicy delay on the 30th he wished to claim for so had to fix ot for that so put in the 31st in the third box and changed the second to the 30th so the claim could be made

I don't know if you are allowed to date the boxes out of order so to speak but if you were that would negate the need I am potentially highlighting

 

[Western Sunset]

Are we all overthinking this?

The ticket was issued on 28th. The OP used it on the following four consecutive days, viz 29th, 30th, 31st and 1st.

I can fully understand the first error, as the "day" boxes already have a number in them.

Hopefully, the OP will clarify further.....