What counts for restrictions - what the passenger is told when buying, or what the database says?

[ForTheLoveOf]

I've been having a think about tickets where there's a disparity between the restrictions the passenger is told about when buying, and the restrictions contained in the fares database.

I think there are two scenarios I'm imagining - where the database (and presumably intended) restrictions and/or permitted routes are more restrictive than the passenger has been told when buying, and vice versa.

Which of these would count when it came to the question of whether a ticket was valid for the purposes of RoRA and the Byelaws, e.g. if an RPI checked?

As a concrete example, there are many double-backs that aren't really intended to be allowed, but that are nevertheless shown as permitted routes by nationalrail.co.uk (e.g. doubling back for stations on the Watford DC line). On the other hand, there are fares like the 'Southern Only' tickets which are arguably valid on Gatwick Express due to the brand vs. TOC distinction.

I would think the accepted validity in the context of any contractual claim (e.g. Delay Repay) would be based on what you are told when sold the ticket. But for criminal law purposes, could you for example have been said to have evaded your fare if you held a ticket not intended to be valid, that you were nevertheless sold as valid?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think in practice if you have a Journey Planner printout that would stand up as evidence. Oral hearsay much less so.

 

[najaB]

But for criminal law purposes, could you for example have been said to have evaded your fare if you held a ticket not intended to be valid, that you were nevertheless sold as valid?

If you have proof of what you were told, then that would trump any intended restrictions. "He told me it was okay." doesn't, for the avoidance of doubt, count as proof.

 

[mallard]

If you have proof of what you were told, then that would trump any intended restrictions. "He told me it was okay." doesn't, for the avoidance of doubt, count as proof.

Except it's up to the prosecution to "avoid doubt"; i.e. prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt". The defence just needs to create enough doubt to prevent that happening. If the defence can (for example) find a few people who have been given the same misleading/incorrect advice, that's possibly enough to establish doubt. (I'm not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.)

Of course, since even winning a court case results in far more damage to an ordinary private individual (stress, reputational damage, loss of earnings from taking time off for the case, cost of getting legal advice/representation, etc.) than even losing does for the TOC (they have all the necissary lawyers, etc. on retainer/staff anyway, all it costs is filing fees and whatever pitiful "costs" the court may award), the scales are very much stacked in the TOC's favour. They don't really want to go to court (it's rarely profitable), so they'll threaten and intimidate until such time that the customer pays up or they have no choice but to either go to court or drop the matter. If there's a significant chance of losing the case, they're unlikely to take it to court.

 

[rdwarr]

If you have proof of what you were told, then that would trump any intended restrictions. "He told me it was okay." doesn't, for the avoidance of doubt, count as proof.

There was one on GN Twitter this morning. Passenger was (incorrectly) told by the Twitter team that the outward portion of a Kings Cross - Cambridge off-peak return was valid before 9:30. Showed the tweet to gateline staff in the hope that it constituted "authorisation" but was not allowed to board. Another member of the Twitter team later stated that it wasn't valid.

 

[najaB]

If the defence can (for example) find a few people who have been given the same misleading/incorrect advice, that's possibly enough to establish doubt.

If it gets as far as Court, then I agree. If you have corroboration then it meets the evidentiary requirements. A single, uncorroborated statement from the accused would not. However, nobody was talking about court.

 

[najaB]

Showed the tweet to gateline staff in the hope that it constituted "authorisation" but was not allowed to board.

That is poor form. If a passenger has proof that they were told that they would be allowed to travel, they should be allowed to travel.

 

[rdwarr]

It doesn't help when the GN website says:
The return part of an Off-Peak ticket can’t be used on northbound services that leave King’s Cross or Moorgate between 16.30 and 19.01 – but you can use a single Off-Peak or the outward part of a return at these times.
but an Off-Peak Return (not Day Return) has Restriction 5J which says (for the Outward bit):
Not valid to depart LONDON KINGS CROSS 1730–1830 on any TOC

 

[Haywain]

In terms of verbal advice I would just point out that in my experience many of those buying tickets turn out to have very short and (intentionally or otherwise) selective memories regarding any advice they are given at the time of purchase.

 

[ainsworth74]

Oral hearsay much less so.

It does of course help what the quality of that is though.

If a passenger says "That bloke on the platform said it was okay" then that's not going to inspire much confidence that anything was actually said.

If a passengers says "Yeah, I spoke with Darren, tall guy wearing glasses, on platform three before getting on board." then that has a lot more weight behind it. Particularly (thinking ahead to a Court date) if it turns out that the TOC in question did indeed have a Darren working at the station on the day in question and Darren is indeed a tall guy who wears glasses.

 

[najaB]

If a passenger says "That bloke on the platform said it was okay" then that's not going to inspire much confidence that anything was actually said.

If a passengers says "Yeah, I spoke with Darren, tall guy wearing glasses, on platform three before getting on board." then that has a lot more weight behind it. Particularly (thinking ahead to a Court date) if it turns out that the TOC in question did indeed have a Darren working at the station on the day in question and Darren is indeed a tall guy who wears glasses.

Even better: "And John was with me and heard it too."

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It does of course help what the quality of that is though.

If a passenger says "That bloke on the platform said it was okay" then . . . . .

I agree.
But its also very relevant to recall what the question was, the question to which the bloke on the platform was replying.
There's a crucial difference between the relevance of the answers to :-
"can I travel to <destination> using this ticket <showing ticket> on that train <identifying the train>?"
and
"does this train go to/ stop at <destination>?"

They are very different questions and will receive very different answers. One of those questions could never possibly be of assistance in the question being posed here.

But if the question was the utterly ambiguous " can I get this train to <destination>?", then the answer is going to be worthless in terms of any subsequent debate.

 

[PeterC]

In a different industry I have known customers go round asking the same question of different staff members hoping that somebody will give them the (wrong) answer that they want.

 

[Gareth Marston]

In a different industry I have known customers go round asking the same question of different staff members hoping that somebody will give them the (wrong) answer that they want.

Such as on the railway "is this an off peak train" or "i want to travel at off peak times"
Correct answer, in terms of ticket validity theirs no such thing.
What the customer really wants to know is is this the cheap train/time.

 

[35B]

Such as on the railway "is this an off peak train" or "i want to travel at off peak times"
Correct answer, in terms of ticket validity theirs no such thing.
What the customer really wants to know is is this the cheap train/time.

And staff should answer the question that the person should have asked, not the one that actually came out of their mouths.

 

[Gareth Marston]

And staff should answer the question that the person should have asked, not the one that actually came out of their mouths.

Hours of endless fun not necessarily giving the passenger the answer they want there!

 

[Haywain]

So, when the customer at Kings Cross asks the member of staff "Is this the Peterborough train?", the member of staff should know that the customer is actually travelling to Huntingdon and does not necessarily want to board a train that stops at Peterborough on its way to Leeds?

 

[Llanigraham]

There is obviously going to be a new set of questions at the initial job interview stage:
"Can you give me an example of when you have used your psychic skills?"

 

[Gareth Marston]

There is obviously going to be a new set of questions at the initial job interview stage:
"Can you give me an example of when you have used your psychic skills?"

"Can I have a return please" must be asked nearly every day here. Its never been for the £646.00 1st Class Anytime Return to Inverness though!

 

[Haywain]

"Can I have a return please" must be asked nearly every day here. Its never been for the £646.00 1st Class Anytime Return to Inverness though!

"Where to?"

"Here, of course."

 

[infobleep]

It does of course help what the quality of that is though.

If a passenger says "That bloke on the platform said it was okay" then that's not going to inspire much confidence that anything was actually said.

If a passengers says "Yeah, I spoke with Darren, tall guy wearing glasses, on platform three before getting on board." then that has a lot more weight behind it. Particularly (thinking ahead to a Court date) if it turns out that the TOC in question did indeed have a Darren working at the station on the day in question and Darren is indeed a tall guy who wears glasses.

What about someone who can't remember what people look like [face blindness] and/or peoples names.

In my case it would be both and there will be others like me. Not that I'd want to be in such a situation.

 

[yorkie]

....ny double-backs that aren't really intended to be allowed, but that are nevertheless shown as permitted routes by nationalrail.co.uk....

Then they probably are intended to be allowed.

Have you read many of the numerous threads about doubling back? For example I posted one last month titled 'mythbusting: doubling back' (I need to add one or two more examples)

This is best discussed by posting the detail of a specific case you have in mind, or perhaps a similar case that you are happy to disclose the detail of. If you want to keep them private, then discuss them in person at a forum event. It is not easy dealing with 'hypothetical' issues.

Without knowing the detail there is not much we can say other than the usual stuff that contract & consumer laws apply (and these rights cannot be removed by train companies), itineraries must be honoured, etc etc...

 

[PeterC]

So, when the customer at Kings Cross asks the member of staff "Is this the Peterborough train?", the member of staff should know that the customer is actually travelling to Huntingdon and does not necessarily want to board a train that stops at Peterborough on its way to Leeds?

Sadly that is just what many members of the public do expect.

 

[35B]

So, when the customer at Kings Cross asks the member of staff "Is this the Peterborough train?", the member of staff should know that the customer is actually travelling to Huntingdon and does not necessarily want to board a train that stops at Peterborough on its way to Leeds?

No. But intelligent and simple questioning (are you travelling to Peterborough?) can enable the right answer to be given without resort to psychic powers.

 

[RJ]

Sadly that is just what many members of the public do expect.

Not everybody is so well versed with how things work that they word their question in the correct way. Part of working in customer service is being aware of this and getting to the bottom of what the customer is actually trying to ask and someone that spends 35 hours a week dealing with passengers should know this. When I'm asked these kind of questions, I jokingly say "it'd be easier if you told me which station you're travelling to!"

If there's such a lack of empathy or patience that a member of staff won't do this or isn't capable of giving more than a one word answer then maybe that particular responsibility is something they need a bit of coaching on.

 

[Haywain]

No. But intelligent and simple questioning (are you travelling to Peterborough?) can enable the right answer to be given without resort to psychic powers.

I wish I'd thought of that.

 

[tiptoptaff]

"Can I have a return please" must be asked nearly every day here. Its never been for the £646.00 1st Class Anytime Return to Inverness though!

"Where to?"

"Here, of course."

This reminds me of a story a guard once told me while working on the Valley lines. He's making his way through the train and he comes across a young girl, who asks "a return please"

To where, the guard asks. "I'm going to my nans house" where's that? "Its up by my auntys" right I don't know you, your nan or your aunty, so where is It you're going? "My nan's house. I've already told you" no, listen. I don't know where your nans house is, or where your auntys house is. I need to know the station you want yo get off at "oh right! I'm going to Merthyr Vale" ok and where have you come from? "My mum's house"