TPE altering dates on outbound portion of SOR.

[soil]

Which came first?

• The contractual right for the railway to retain it's own property after you have finished using it for travel.
  
• Your employer's current policy on reimbursement of travel costs.

The fact is that whatever the theoretical property rights are on used train tickets, the railway has hitherto shown little or no interest in retaining old tickets, and while it could change this policy en mass; arbitrary, 0.01% of the time, changes to standard working practice aren't reasonable.

 

[maniacmartin]

My previous three employers have all been happy to accept non-itemised railway receipts for expenses. They even accept Oyster PAYG topup receipts which obviously don't detail the journey, because the claim cost is cheaper than that of a paper ticket.

They can look up the costs of the ticket online, and if the cost and date matches then it's unlikely that I bought some other ticket on the same day for the same price, and even if I did, the company wouldn't lose out if they were reimbursing a ticket of the same cost anyway.

Companies have been providing non-itemised receipts for years - just look at corner shops with old tills that give vague receipts like "GROCERY £0.99" but I don't see anyone complaining about that. Of course itemised receipts are better, and are becoming more common, but I don't think that justifies needing to keep your ticket.

 

[soil]

Expense policies vary. A 99p coke from the corner shop is NOT comparable to a train ticket costing hundreds. In any case whereas you COULD get a VAT receipt for a coke if purchased elsewhere, the railways are a monopoly.

It is not reasonable to expect an accounts department to waste its time looking up ticket prices online when an actual ticket can be checked in 2 seconds flat and in general tickets are retained by the user.

 

[4SRKT]

My previous three employers have all been happy to accept non-itemised railway receipts for expenses. They even accept Oyster PAYG topup receipts which obviously don't detail the journey, because the claim cost is cheaper than that of a paper ticket.

They can look up the costs of the ticket online, and if the cost and date matches then it's unlikely that I bought some other ticket on the same day for the same price, and even if I did, the company wouldn't lose out if they were reimbursing a ticket of the same cost anyway.

Companies have been providing non-itemised receipts for years - just look at corner shops with old tills that give vague receipts like "GROCERY £0.99" but I don't see anyone complaining about that. Of course itemised receipts are better, and are becoming more common, but I don't think that justifies needing to keep your ticket.

It's amazing that you've managed to work for all three available employers in this country. I therefore now understand how you come to know the expenses policies of all UK employers. Please accept my apologies.

Just one question though, how would anyone retrospectively look up the cost of an advance ticket?

Oh, and the justification for non-itemised receipts being that grocery shops have been doing it for years is another one that's given me a chuckle. Railways adopt retail industry worst practice??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is not reasonable to expect an accounts department to waste its time looking up ticket prices online when an actual ticket can be checked in 2 seconds flat and in general tickets are retained by the user.

It's quite reasonable to expect a non-railway company to waste its time, as long as this means complying with an arcane and almost completely irrelevant piece of railway regulation. Did you not know this?

 

[maniacmartin]

Of course I haven't worked for every employer in the country. My point was that if my employers can cope then clearly it is possible to survive on just a receipt. My employers don't actually look up the prices, because they trust their employees, but they could do so if they wished.

For advance tickets, the chances are that they will be bought online where you get a more detailed receipt, or bought directly by the company anyway. You certainly can't get them from TVMs which are the main culprit for these vague receipts.

I don't think the requirement to hand over a ticket is totally irrelevant. It prevents (such as the return part of period returns) tickets from being reused

 

[IanXC]

My employer requires either that we purchase tickets from an internally available booking engine (not the trainline ) so avoiding claims at all.

As an alternative we can submit expense claims, they do require sight of the tickets, however as with everything else we're actively encouraged to send copies rather than originals (presumably so accounts can avoid the risk of loosing them!) So I just take the copies before travel, then it doesn't matter if they're retained. I think this ought to be an acceptable compromise in most cases.

 

[Gemz91]

Companies have been providing non-itemised receipts for years - just look at corner shops with old tills that give vague receipts like "GROCERY £0.99" but I don't see anyone complaining about that. Of course itemised receipts are better, and are becoming more common, but I don't think that justifies needing to keep your ticket.

From my buffet car days, many passengers would request I simply put "refreshments" on their receipts as opposed to an itemised receipt, that way they could have an alcoholic beverage with their food with out their company knowing.

 

[4SRKT]

I think we need to move away from saying 'my employer does x, y or z' as if this had any bearing on anything. Please just take my word for it that some employers (maybe ones you haven't worked for even) *do* require a ticket, and while this persists then tickets will continue to be retained by employees of those firms. This ignorance of the actual property rights of TOCs may annoy a few railway employees on a forum, but most people will continue blissfully unaware.

Lost in all this has been my oft-repeated point that it doesn't matter a stuff anyway because gateline assistants almost without exception allow you to keep any ticket if you ask politely. So the barriers are a farce and cheats will know this and continue to cheat. And the world will go on.

 

[Goatboy]

In many cases, as staff, it is often cheaper to buy Advance tickets and travel without using the priv card!

The fact that comedy cheap Advance tickets exist on a number of flows doesn't mean that the PRIV tickets are not very keenly priced, though.

They are - it's an excellent benefit (And so it should be).

 

[maniacmartin]

I am not a railway employee

 

[IanD]

Have you encountered the G4S clowns at Manchester ?

Or any passengers who are not either staff or forum members, i.e. most of them? Which is the point of this entire thread. I didn't break my journey, nor did I want to. I regarded what the guard did as wrong so challenged him with a theoretical question to which he had no good answer other than 'only obeying orders'.

How many passengers unfamiliar with the arcane rules of ticketing would have been aware that this change did not invalidate the ticket? It certainly looks as though it does. If an employee of the railway writes something on a ticket, most people will assume it is correct procedure. And this is the point, not that some pernickity nuisance forum member has spotted something dubious.

And as for the trite remark that 'anyone could have written that on the ticket', can I use that reasoning to reuse any ticket in future whose only grip mark is in biro, e.g. anything by Northern? "No Mr Northern Rail guard, it was me who circled that date, not one of your colleagues three weeks ago". No, of course I can't say that, so it can't be one rule for the TOCs/grips/RPIs and another rule for passengers.

I must apologise if you didn't like my response. I didn't realise at the time that it was one of those threads where you're not allowed to gainsay the original post. Having read all the susbsequent posts, I am now aware of this so will be taking no further part.

 

[sheff1]

Companies have been providing non-itemised receipts for years - just look at corner shops with old tills that give vague receipts like "GROCERY £0.99" but I don't see anyone complaining about that.

Of course people aren't complaining. If an employee puts in a claim for a lunchtime sandwich and the receipt is as described the correlation is pretty obvious.

A 'receipt' for a £100 train ticket which gives no breakdown at all is completely different.

Anyway, as has been pointed out, many TOCs automatically issue properly itemised receipts so it is unclear why it should be a problem for others.

Of course, if all TOCs did supply such receipts this comment:

The issues with your employer are a problem with your employer.

would carry a lot more weight.




--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I must apologise if you didn't like my response. I didn't realise at the time that it was one of those threads where you're not allowed to gainsay the original post. Having read all the susbsequent posts, I am now aware of this so will be taking no further part.

I gave what I thought was a good example of where someone could well think a random mark overrides the printed information on the ticket.

If you don't like being gainsaid, then I think you have made the correct decision.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The former of course, but the fact that a load of staff and cranks on a railway forum know this arcane piece of practical irrelevance don't make it common knowledge with the public I'm afraid.....[/i]

Your employer makes the rules on your expenses claims, not the railway, therefore it is not the railway's problem if you can't claim it back because of your employers policies.

The fact is that whatever the theoretical property rights are on used train tickets, the railway has hitherto shown little or no interest in retaining old tickets, and while it could change this policy en mass; arbitrary, 0.01% of the time, changes to standard working practice aren't reasonable.

So basically the railway is wrong even when it is right because it's inconvenient to you and your employer? Glad we cleared that one up then.

Expense policies vary. A 99p coke from the corner shop is NOT comparable to a train ticket costing hundreds. In any case whereas you COULD get a VAT receipt for a coke if purchased elsewhere, the railways are a monopoly....

So, whilst you could buy a bottle of coke at a variety of places you only have one choice of vendor for railway tickets huh? Well fortunately the majority of people in this country actually have many choices, I mean, aside from virtually any railway station in the country and a number of telesales offices, there are a couple of online retailers as well, but as they clearly can't help you, it must be the railway's fault again.

It is not reasonable to expect an accounts department to waste its time looking up ticket prices online when an actual ticket can be checked in 2 seconds flat and in general tickets are retained by the user.

Erm, who's responsibility is it to check the expenses claim? Is it the railway's fault if a company cannot manage it's own accounting processes? Or is this simply another inconvenience that the evil railway have forced upon an innocent company and it's employees?

 

[Mark_H]

Of course people aren't complaining. If an employee puts in a claim for a lunchtime sandwich and the receipt is as described the correlation is pretty obvious.

Oh, how lovely it would be if it were that simple. My lunchtime sandwich receipt must be submitted along with the full address of the location it was bought from, and the location it was consumed. Seriously. This is to check I aren't breaking an arcane rule about how far from the office I have to be to claim my lunch back.

More seriously, it is a pretty obvious business practice to cater to nonsensical requirements if they let you make money. For example, all petrol stations offer a fully itemised receipt with the purchasers stated mileage printed on it. There's no good reason for them to put themselves to this trouble, except that some business drivers would be forced to go elsewhere if they didn't. At one point, some petrol stations didn't do this. They lost business. So they changed, even though it was a silly requirement, because that is what well-run businesses do when they want to make money.

 

[soil]

The fact is that whatever the theoretical property rights are on used train tickets, the railway has hitherto shown little or no interest in retaining old tickets, and while it could change this policy en mass; arbitrary, 0.01% of the time, changes to standard working practice aren't reasonable.

So basically the railway is wrong even when it is right because it's inconvenient to you and your employer? Glad we cleared that one up then.

No they are not right. Laws or rules which are arbitrarily enforced only in the exception and without any need for rationale or explanation are tyrannical. The law until relatively recently criminalised consensual homosexual behaviour, and also said that rape inside a marriage was impossible. These laws we would say now are wrong. The law does not determine right and wrong.

Either approach to used tickets is acceptable, either collecting up used tickets or not. What is not reasonable is to grant arbitrary power to individuals to make decisions based on their mood, their prejudices, and whatever else.
It is not about the railway being right or wrong in terms of compliance with legislation, but about predictable, well-advertised policies by train companies, so that when an individual travels on business he an do so with confidence that he will be reimbursed by his company without hassle - if this confidence evaporates, he will choose an alternative means of transportation.

So, whilst you could buy a bottle of coke at a variety of places you only have one choice of vendor for railway tickets huh? Well fortunately the majority of people in this country actually have many choices, I mean, aside from virtually any railway station in the country and a number of telesales offices, there are a couple of online retailers as well, but as they clearly can't help you, it must be the railway's fault again.

Well no, typically within walking distance of a station you can buy your coke from multiple outlets, some of which will offer a proper receipt. There is typically only one vendor for train tickets for immediate use.

Erm, who's responsibility is it to check the expenses claim? Is it the railway's fault if a company cannot manage it's own accounting processes? Or is this simply another inconvenience that the evil railway have forced upon an innocent company and it's employees?

I think you will find that it is entirely normal for transportation companies to seek to comply with the needs of companies. A company with offices in Edinburgh and London, say, could spend literally millions transporting people between the two, and that money is certainly welcome for the TOC. That business depends on predictable patterns of behaviour on the part of TOC employees, and clear, consistent policies on things like receipts, and tickets and so on.

The idea that arbitrary enforcement of rules 'because you can' is more important than the accounting processes of companies on which the TOC is dependent for a significant portion of its revenue is bizarre.

Train companies are profit-making companies, they want to make profit. They are not in the business of annoying corporate accounts departments.

 

[island]

The fact is that whatever the theoretical property rights are on used train tickets, the railway has hitherto shown little or no interest in retaining old tickets, and while it could change this policy en mass; arbitrary, 0.01% of the time, changes to standard working practice aren't reasonable.

This is quite wrong. Some years ago, used tickets were religiously collected at the final destination for use in internal accounting.

I am with hairyhandedfool on this one. The fact that some employers have daft expense policies does not supersede the NRCoC that you agree to when buying your ticket, which state that the tickets are the property of the railway.

 

[4SRKT]

Your employer makes the rules on your expenses claims, not the railway, therefore it is not the railway's problem if you can't claim it back because of your employers policies.

<sigh> For what seems like the hundredth time, I do not have any problem claiming it back because I am always able to keep the ticket. This means I don't need receipts so don't ask for them. For all the bluster about 'railway rules' they are not applied so it doesn't matter what they are.

How about a new sort of bingo? One where you get a point for every post on this forum that contains the phrase "it's not the railway's problem". Was there ever an industry that cared so little about the people who pay its wages?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is quite wrong. Some years ago, used tickets were religiously collected at the final destination for use in internal accounting.

I am with hairyhandedfool on this one. The fact that some employers have daft expense policies does not supersede the NRCoC that you agree to when buying your ticket, which state that the tickets are the property of the railway.

And who, apart from, you, hairyhandedfool and a few others on here has read the NRCoC? You are relying on legalistic arguments when dealing with a mass of passengers who just don't care or want to know. And frankly it doesn't seem to me to matter who owns the ticket in the end, it's just a trivial legal detail, ESPECIALLY when no railway employees in reality actually seem to care whether you keep it or not.

 

[reb0118]

For what seems like the hundredth time, I do not have any problem claiming it back because I am always able to keep the ticket

Until the time comes when you are not.

And who, apart from, you, hairyhandedfool and a few others on here has read the NRCoC? You are relying on legalistic arguments when dealing with a mass of passengers who just don't care or want to know. And frankly it doesn't seem to me to matter who owns the ticket in the end, it's just a trivial legal detail, ESPECIALLY when no railway employees in reality actually seem to care whether you keep it or not.

Tickets are normally retained at the stations with barriers where I work. I believe staff are under instruction to retain tickets that expire at their destination even if presented at a manual gate.

Customer service notwithstanding the railway does have the right to retain tickets and passengers should become aware of this.

 

[34D]

The large multi-national corporate with whom I had a management role several years back mandated a VAT receipt (notwithstanding that train tickets are zero-rated) for all train travel-related claims. The tickets could be enclosed if wished.

 

[4SRKT]

The large multi-national corporate with whom I had a management role several years back mandated a VAT receipt (notwithstanding that train tickets are zero-rated) for all train travel-related claims. The tickets could be enclosed if wished.

Ah, case closed then. If that particular organisation did this then it follows that all organisations do it. Silly me, I have been wrong all along.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Until the time comes when you are not.

And if that happens I will start asking for itemised receipts and inform my employer. Until then I carry on as now. This isn't difficult to follow you know.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I certainly take the point about cheap advances, but then non-priv holders wouldn't see those as a hideous cost. What about your boxes though? They make up for a lot surely?

I don't have any boxes. I started working on the railway after 1996.

The fact that comedy cheap Advance tickets exist on a number of flows doesn't mean that the PRIV tickets are not very keenly priced, though.

They are - it's an excellent benefit (And so it should be).

Yes, it can be an excellent benefit, but not always, and not for every journey.

If I decided I wanted to go to London for a trip out tomorrow with my dad, using his senior railcard the walk up fare he pays is less than the cheapest fare I can buy. Somebody without a railcard only pays 30p more than me and that is an on the day fare. Yes I agree this contrast doesn't happen everywhere, but due to the now huge difference between Anytime and Off Peak fares on many routes, and the priv discount only applying to Anytime fares, it is by no means the universal money saving excellent value discount card it is made out to be.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

No they are not right. Laws or rules which are arbitrarily enforced only in the exception and without any need for rationale or explanation are tyrannical....

I see, so when it suits, arbitrary enforcement is great, but when it doesn't.......

....The law until relatively recently criminalised consensual homosexual behaviour, and also said that rape inside a marriage was impossible. These laws we would say now are wrong. The law does not determine right and wrong....

Being honest, I'm not sure I understand the relevance.

....Either approach to used tickets is acceptable, either collecting up used tickets or not. What is not reasonable is to grant arbitrary power to individuals to make decisions based on their mood, their prejudices, and whatever else....

So you would like all tickets collected after use then? I'm sure that can be arranged, I'll have a word with the G4S guys and gals in the morning.

....It is not about the railway being right or wrong in terms of compliance with legislation, but about predictable, well-advertised policies by train companies, so that when an individual travels on business he an do so with confidence that he will be reimbursed by his company without hassle - if this confidence evaporates, he will choose an alternative means of transportation....

When anyone mentions claiming expenses, I always issue a receipt, this is the instruction from my employer. If the passenger does not wish to have a receipt or does not make this known, I cannot help them. This is not the railway's fault.

....Well no, typically within walking distance of a station you can buy your coke from multiple outlets, some of which will offer a proper receipt. There is typically only one vendor for train tickets for immediate use....

The increased placement of ticket vending machines is making that argument very thin indeed. The ability to pre-book tickets and have them sent to your home makes it even thinner, and then there are those companies which offer print@home and mobile tickets, not to mention smart cards.

....I think you will find that it is entirely normal for transportation companies to seek to comply with the needs of companies....

The railway issues receipts upon request, not sure how this does not help, though I'm sure it is in some way the railways fault that the companies don't consider this acceptable.

To be honest, I think if the company does not accept receipts for expenses because the receipt cannot be trusted to give accurate information, I think this says more about some of the employees than it does the railway (present company excepted I'm sure).

....A company with offices in Edinburgh and London, say, could spend literally millions transporting people between the two, and that money is certainly welcome for the TOC. That business depends on predictable patterns of behaviour on the part of TOC employees, and clear, consistent policies on things like receipts, and tickets and so on....

And the railway will happily provide receipts for any ticket purchasing passenger, for expenses claims or not, at the time of sale, I believe that is clear and consistent.

The idea that arbitrary enforcement of rules 'because you can' is more important than the accounting processes of companies on which the TOC is dependent for a significant portion of its revenue is bizarre....

I guess that depends on your point of view, it seems bizarre to me that companies have so little trust in their employees that a receipt, of any nature, is not acceptable, particularly where the cost of things can be checked.

....Train companies are profit-making companies, they want to make profit. They are not in the business of annoying corporate accounts departments.

The railway can provide receipts for expenses claims, it is clearly not the railway that annoys the companies.

<sigh> For what seems like the hundredth time, I do not have any problem claiming it back because I am always able to keep the ticket. This means I don't need receipts so don't ask for them. For all the bluster about 'railway rules' they are not applied so it doesn't matter what they are....

I didn't say you had trouble claiming back, I said IF you have trouble claiming it back, it is not the railways fault. Please try to read what I post before commenting.

....How about a new sort of bingo? One where you get a point for every post on this forum that contains the phrase "it's not the railway's problem"....

But it's not.

....Was there ever an industry that cared so little about the people who pay its wages?...

Firstly, the idea of 'passengers paying wages' is pretty much the dying argument of a losing battle, you'd be surprised how often I hear it. Secondly, ever heard of Ryanair.....

....And who, apart from, you, hairyhandedfool and a few others on here has read the NRCoC?...

I don't think anyone could say, but I bet that is the railways fault too...

....You are relying on legalistic arguments when dealing with a mass of passengers who just don't care or want to know....

Is that the railways fault?

....And frankly it doesn't seem to me to matter who owns the ticket in the end, it's just a trivial legal detail, ESPECIALLY when no railway employees in reality actually seem to care whether you keep it or not.

A 'trivial legal detail' which happens to be inconvenient to some people, but I suppose that is the railway's fault, everything else is (apparently).

 

[LexyBoy]

Delay Repay is of course another common reason for wanting to keep tickets. I am not aware that receipts will be accepted for this purpose.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

No they are not right. Laws or rules which are arbitrarily enforced only in the exception and without any need for rationale or explanation are tyrannical. The law until relatively recently criminalised consensual homosexual behaviour, . . . . . <snip>

We do like hyperbole on here, don't we? Tyrannical, eh?

If you agree with me that Laws which are enforced means laws which are prosecuted, whether successfully or not, then I can assure you that any successful prosecution must pass a high standard of 'rationale AND explanation'. The time interval between any Decision (criminal or Civil) which lacks such 'rationale AND explanation' and an application for a Judicial Review or Appeal can be measured in blinks of the eye - they're simply not tolerated.

If you do not agree that Laws which are enforced means laws which are prosecuted, (whether successfully or not) then what is in your mind when you refer to 'laws which are arbitrarily enforced' that is not prosecution?

How a consideration of 'consensual homosexual behaviour' helps us might require some further explanation.

 

[soil]

I see, so when it suits, arbitrary enforcement is great, but when it doesn't.......

No arbitrary enforcement isn't great. I don't know where you get that idea from.

Being honest, I'm not sure I understand the relevance.

You said that the railway was in the right because the law makes tickets the property of the railway. My point was that the law doesn't determine what is right and wrong, and of course there is de facto and actual law. In theory tickets belong the railway, in practice they are discarded as worthless.

So you would like all tickets collected after use then? I'm sure that can be arranged, I'll have a word with the G4S guys and gals in the morning.

I personally speaking couldn't care less. The point being that there is an expectation, and in reality a general practice that you can retain your ticket. If that's going to change then so be it, but it needs to be effectively communicated so that there's a general understanding that you can't keep your train ticket.

When anyone mentions claiming expenses, I always issue a receipt, this is the instruction from my employer. If the passenger does not wish to have a receipt or does not make this known, I cannot help them. This is not the railway's fault.

If a passenger buys a ticket then, according to actual day-to-day experience using trains, he can retain that ticket for submission for expenses.

A train ticket is a pretty good record of an expense occurred, they show cost, and the points travelled to and from. Any receipt I've ever received doesn't show that, perhaps yours are different, but the most efficient means for a company to verify that a claimed expense is legitimate is with the actual ticket.

Again I don't know why you are talking about fault, this is not about fault, this is about the fact that making basic accommodation for the specifications of corporate account departments is good sound business sense - that's why in most petrol stations they ask me if I want a VAT receipt, because they know that I am likely to need one to reclaim the fuel on expenses, and if I forget or don't get one I will take my business elsewhere. Likewise if I am told at the end of my train journey that I can't keep my ticket, and should have asked for a receipt, even though every other time I've been able to walk through without question, then again I am likely to take my business elsewhere.

The increased placement of ticket vending machines is making that argument very thin indeed. The ability to pre-book tickets and have them sent to your home makes it even thinner, and then there are those companies which offer print@home and mobile tickets, not to mention smart cards.

Ticket vending machines are in stations. They issue a receipt which looks like this:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2286/2231155081_ba293b26ed_o.jpg

It provides no record of the actual travel purchased. The ticket does provide this record. The other ticket types you mention are available on a piecemeal basis, whereas the train ticket is universal and valid across the entire country.

The railway issues receipts upon request, not sure how this does not help, though I'm sure it is in some way the railways fault that the companies don't consider this acceptable.

There is no 'the railway'. There are numerous different private companies operating train services under different brands. Within this individual employees will operate different policies according to their own perceptions, prejudices and moods.

Clearly given that there is officially a National set of terms that apply to all of these, there is a problem if rules are not applied in a consistent manner - and clearly they are not.

To be honest, I think if the company does not accept receipts for expenses because the receipt cannot be trusted to give accurate information, I think this says more about some of the employees than it does the railway (present company excepted I'm sure).

The receipt does not give accurate information about the ticket that has been sold.

As we have seen with the House of Commons, an expenses policy that is not exceedingly scrupulous and careful will be abused and even defrauded.

There are 650 MPs, and at least five were convicted of criminal offences in relation to expenses, dozens resigned, and numerous others appear to have abused the system.

I'm not sure what sort of fantasy land companies are expected to inhabit where they trust their staff without question, but it isn't one I would want to business in. News reports of companies going bust because of expenses fraud and outright theft are common.

The railway can provide receipts for expenses claims, it is clearly not the railway that annoys the companies.

The railway can also allow people to keep their tickets, it even says so in the terms of carriage:

"Where delays, cancellations or poor service arise for reasons within the control of a Train Company or Rail Service Company, you are entitled to compensation"

"When you make your claim you must provide a ticket or other authority to travel which was valid for that journey. A Train Company will allow you to retain a ticket for this purpose."

So in other words the train companies won't even accept that one of your receipts are valid proof of the journey being undertaken, and they are the ones selling the tickets and running the trains, why on earth would you expect a company that isn't in the business of running trains, checking delay records or anything else, to do so? :roll::roll:

 

[Gathursty]

I remember last year a very keen member of staff asking for my ticket after it was expired at Manchester Victoria. I was a bit surprised when he took it from me but I wasn't aware of the fare evasion problems around there. I think it would be better for some parts of the NRCoC to be better advertised or I might have still thought the guy was a bit of a nutter for following me halfway across the concourse.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the railways had a consistent approach to tickets acting as receipts then there wouldn't be the same issue. Some ticket barriers are set to retain tickets, and some are set to return them; Leeds manages to have both types of barrier in the same gateline. A receipt will not suffice for delay repay/charter compensation, nor can you travel on a receipt, but a receipt is supposed to be perfectly adequate for everyone else.

Receipts often do not show what you have bought, and when you have used it. They are also not given as default and, when using a TVM, you only have a few seconds to ask for a receipt before the box disappears.

Given stupid rules like this, it is precious little wonder that the TOCs have a reputation somewhere just below that of the banks.

 

[4SRKT]

But it's not.

No nothing ever is.

Firstly, the idea of 'passengers paying wages' is pretty much the dying argument of a losing battle, you'd be surprised how often I hear it. Secondly, ever heard of Ryanair...

I don't even begin to understand what you mean by dying argument of a losing battle. That's just your [convenient] opinion, and nonsense to boot. Don't like what you hear? Brush it aside with clever sounding sophistry.

Oh, and Ryanair is a company, not an *industry*. D'oh.

I don't think anyone could say, but I bet that is the railways fault too...

Not at all. I don't care how many people have read it. In reality few people do, so legalistically quoting from it to prove just how nasty or stupid passengers are (and yes, they *do* pay your wages, no matter how much you may not like this), is pure pedantry.

Is that the railways fault?

Quite a chip on that shoulder.

A 'trivial legal detail' which happens to be inconvenient to some people, but I suppose that is the railway's fault, everything else is (apparently).

Where have I said anything at all is the railways' fault? Too defensive by half. The fact is the railway is adept at hiding behind legalistic irrelevances (like who actually owns a small piece of paper, something passengers really could not care less about, and it would seem, most staff). Luckily the practice on the ground is that most staff are in fact pretty helpful and don't spout legalistic drivel at passengers when faced with polite requests to retain tickets, and long may this continue.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

No arbitrary enforcement isn't great. I don't know where you get that idea from....

Just the general feeling I get from the forum, forget I mentioned it.

You said that the railway was in the right because the law makes tickets the property of the railway. My point was that the law doesn't determine what is right and wrong, and of course there is de facto and actual law. In theory tickets belong the railway, in practice they are discarded as worthless....

In respect of them acting in accordance with the relevant laws, rules, terms and conditions, they are 'in the right' to retain a ticket, except, clearly, when the passenger feels they are not.

I personally speaking couldn't care less. The point being that there is an expectation, and in reality a general practice that you can retain your ticket. If that's going to change then so be it, but it needs to be effectively communicated so that there's a general understanding that you can't keep your train ticket....

Companies should already have checked this before setting policies that it may not be possible to follow. I fail to see how stickers at sales points, writing in the terms of sale on websites and printed information on tickets about the conditions attached to them is not effectively communicated, unless the real problem is forcing people to read them?

If a passenger buys a ticket then, according to actual day-to-day experience using trains, he can retain that ticket for submission for expenses....

If it is not collected by the railway, then I guess the person can do with it as they see fit, but if the ticket is collected, it may be too late to get a VAT receipt for it. Better to get a receipt from the start, don't you think?

A train ticket is a pretty good record of an expense occurred, they show cost, and the points travelled to and from. Any receipt I've ever received doesn't show that, perhaps yours are different, but the most efficient means for a company to verify that a claimed expense is legitimate is with the actual ticket....

Well, since APTIS went a decade or so ago, I believe I have only seen itemised receipts from the machines I have used, perhaps I'm 'lucky'.

Again I don't know why you are talking about fault, this is not about fault, this is about the fact that making basic accommodation for the specifications of corporate account departments is good sound business sense - that's why in most petrol stations they ask me if I want a VAT receipt, because they know that I am likely to need one to reclaim the fuel on expenses, and if I forget or don't get one I will take my business elsewhere. Likewise if I am told at the end of my train journey that I can't keep my ticket, and should have asked for a receipt, even though every other time I've been able to walk through without question, then again I am likely to take my business elsewhere....

The railway offer receipts, ticket prices can be checked online FREE OF CHARGE, what more do you need? Why is it up to the railway to sort out another businesses accounts beyond that?

Ticket vending machines are in stations. They issue a receipt which looks like this:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2286/2231155081_ba293b26ed_o.jpg

It provides no record of the actual travel purchased. The ticket does provide this record. The other ticket types you mention are available on a piecemeal basis, whereas the train ticket is universal and valid across the entire country....

That is a SALES VOUCHER. It says so at the top, I'm not sure how you missed that bit. A receipt has RECEIPT written on it.

The receipt does not give accurate information about the ticket that has been sold....

Show me one.

As we have seen with the House of Commons, an expenses policy that is not exceedingly scrupulous and careful will be abused and even defrauded....

By dishonest people, frankly, if a company's employees are not trustworthy it is up to that company to sort it out.

....There are 650 MPs, and at least five were convicted of criminal offences in relation to expenses, dozens resigned, and numerous others appear to have abused the system.....

And I bet the checking system in place was not suitable for the expenses system they had.

I'm not sure what sort of fantasy land companies are expected to inhabit where they trust their staff without question, but it isn't one I would want to business in. News reports of companies going bust because of expenses fraud and outright theft are common.

Like I say, all the receipts I have issued (for two companies at opposite ends of the country) have been itemised, why a company needs more than that I do not know, I can only think that the honesty of their employees must be in question.

Also, some companies choose to book travel tickets for their employees, rather than let the employee buy them and claim it back. Perhaps that is a better system.

The railway can also allow people to keep their tickets, it even says so in the terms of carriage:

"Where delays, cancellations or poor service arise for reasons within the control of a Train Company or Rail Service Company, you are entitled to compensation"

"When you make your claim you must provide a ticket or other authority to travel which was valid for that journey. A Train Company will allow you to retain a ticket for this purpose."

So in other words the train companies won't even accept that one of your receipts are valid proof of the journey being undertaken, and they are the ones selling the tickets and running the trains, why on earth would you expect a company that isn't in the business of running trains, checking delay records or anything else, to do so? :roll::roll:

To be fair, if you submit a ticket to the railway in the end anyway, what difference is there in allowing someone to keep it for that bit longer? Further, tickets checked on the train can be marked to show which train the passenger was actually on, which may not be apparent from the receipt, I doubt this is essential for expenses claims.

No nothing ever is....

Maybe, but you'd never believe that from reading this forum, in fact I reckon you'd think quite the opposite.

I don't even begin to understand what you mean by dying argument of a losing battle. That's just your [convenient] opinion, and nonsense to boot. Don't like what you hear? Brush it aside with clever sounding sophistry....

No, it's not "[convenient] opinion", it's experience from 15 years working on the railway. The only time that ever gets uttered is when people are not getting their way.

Oh, and Ryanair is a company, not an *industry*. D'oh....

Ryanair is representing air travel is it not? In the same way one of the rail companies might be seen to represent the railway.

Not at all. I don't care how many people have read it. In reality few people do, so legalistically quoting from it to prove just how nasty or stupid passengers are (and yes, they *do* pay your wages, no matter how much you may not like this), is pure pedantry....

According to a company director I spoke to earlier in the year, the average ticket revenue for an average journey on Northern is £3 and the average cost of that journey is apparently £6, so, if true, there is a chance that the revenue pays someone's wages, but there is an equal chance that it does not.

Quite a chip on that shoulder....

Where? Oh I wish I could see it, I love chips, anyone got some mayo?

Where have I said anything at all is the railways' fault? Too defensive by half....

Oh I'm sorry, here I was thinking everyone was saying the railway (and/or it's many companies, brands, employees and other representatives are responsible for allowing other companies to have accurate expenses claims information and when the railway follows the rules everyone has agreed to, it is evil and fully to blame for everything the universe can throw at it. Silly me.

The fact is the railway is adept at hiding behind legalistic irrelevances (like who actually owns a small piece of paper, something passengers really could not care less about, and it would seem, most staff). Luckily the practice on the ground is that most staff are in fact pretty helpful and don't spout legalistic drivel at passengers when faced with polite requests to retain tickets, and long may this continue.

It's more like card really, with a nice smooth thermal coating on one side and a magnetic strip on the other, but I'm sure that's just a trivial detail.