Severe ticketing fault (Sailrail)

[Bletchleyite]

That's actually the route: 'LVPL STENA NIGHT'

No, go back to the list and look at the summary restrictions (I didn't realise summary restrictions, which I believe if they fit are printed on the ticket, aren't shown on the BRFares detail page).

I'd appreciate a link to where you found this information. Thanks.

It's a conclusion drawn from the fact that this is the first time I have ever seen the phrase "ON DATE SHOWN" printed on a ticket that was not a Day Single or Day Return (or possibly Day Ranger).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If it said ONLY ON DATE SHOWN I'd agree. However, just because something is valid ON DATE SHOWN, that doesn't mean that it can't be valid on other dates.

I fundamentally disagree, and if I were an RPI and you said that to me you would just have failed the attitude test and so the PF book would come out (though to clarify I do believe that this should have been a "withdraw for investigation and issue free replacement" situation).

There is absolutely no reason why a ticket would say "VALID ON DATE SHOWN" if it were also valid on other dates and I have never seen one that did. As there are other tickets in that list that are valid only on the printed date on the ticket, it is a reasonable conclusion that it is an issuing error caused by incorrect entry in whatever system is doing the issuing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The "Valid until" date should not be a barrier to staff accepting a ticket beyond that date. Plenty of examples exist where validity on the second day is perfectly acceptable, such as many long distance Off-Peak Singles or outward portion of Off-Peak Returns.

Those do not say "ON DATE SHOWN" in the validity field, though, they say "SEE RESTRCTIONS" which is what I think this one should say. I agree, however, that they are misleading in that context and that it should be printed as the day after on Off Peak (not Day) Singles and Returns, or it should be changed to say "Valid to start jny from" and "Valid to start jny to" if that is what it means.

 

[EM2]

...it is a reasonable conclusion that it is an issuing error caused by incorrect entry in whatever system is doing the issuing.

Which was the OP's point in the first place.

 

[najaB]

No, go back to the list and look at the summary restrictions (I didn't realise summary restrictions, which I believe if they fit are printed on the ticket, aren't shown on the BRFares detail page).

I'm looking at a ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If a ticket says valid "ON DATE SHOWN" it is NOT valid for travel past 0429 on day 2, regardless of what it is.

It's a conclusion drawn from the fact that...

Please don't state assumptions/deductions as fact.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm looking at a ticket.

Which I believe to be incorrectly issued, and that makes it not valid (though because the reason is incorrect issue, a PF is not appropriate).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which was the OP's point in the first place.

Yes, I agree and that he was dealt with wrongly; he should have had it corrected by the RPI he first encountered who should have withdrawn it for investigation and issued a free replacement to allow completion of the booked journey. Perhaps if RPIs/Guards were doing that as a matter of course as they should be, and not just letting it go, it might have been fixed by now?

 

[yorkie]

Exactly , all the ones who want to hang the inspector without a shred of evidence should hang their heads in shame

Some people need to hang their heads in shame, I agree. But those people are not us. They are the inspector, and those who defend the indefensible.

If I treated my 'customers' like that, I'd expect to be sacked, pretty much on the spot. Not that I am asking for anyone to be sacked; far from it. A quiet word of advice is probably all that's needed.

 

[najaB]

Which I believe to be incorrectly issued, and that makes it not valid (though because the reason is incorrect issue, a PF is not appropriate).

I'm sorry, but while I see your train of thought I can't agree it is valid. As I understand it your argument is: It says 'ON DATE SHOWN' in the validity field. Day Singles say 'ON DATE SHOWN' in the validity field. Therefore it is a Day Single and should be treated as such.

I cannot agree with that because it specifically states that it is not a Day Single but in fact is 'STENA STBY O/P'. A restriction doesn't change the ticket type.

 

[bb21]

Those do not say "ON DATE SHOWN" in the validity field, though, they say "SEE RESTRCTIONS" which is what I think this one should say. I agree, however, that they are misleading in that context and that it should be printed as the day after on Off Peak (not Day) Singles and Returns, or it should be changed to say "Valid to start jny from" and "Valid to start jny to" if that is what it means.

I can see where you are coming from. I agree that more consistency regarding the meaning of the wording would be more helpful, to both staff and passengers.

It is a historical issue though. Anytime Day (Standard Day) tickets were always printed with the wording ON DATE SHOWN and an overnight break of journey was permitted before the changes in November 2011. In the vast majority of cases, of course the ticket would only be valid on that particular day, but exceptions always existed, so it would have been part of revenue teams' training that sometimes these tickets can be valid on the following day.

Of course with old style layout gradually being replaced, there is an opportunity to improve things, but exceptions will always exist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is a historical issue though. Anytime Day (Standard Day) tickets were always printed with the wording ON DATE SHOWN and an overnight break of journey was permitted before the changes in November 2011. In the vast majority of cases, of course the ticket would only be valid on that particular day, but exceptions always existed, so it would have been part of revenue teams' training that sometimes these tickets can be valid on the following day.

Interesting, I never knew any Day Single ever allowed overnight BoJ - indeed that was what I thought was the (only) difference between a Day Single and an Ordinary (for want of a better term) one.

Of course with old style layout gradually being replaced, there is an opportunity to improve things, but exceptions will always exist.

True, but I still believe this one to be an issuing/fares DB error, and it should say "SEE RESTRCTIONS" as per the Off Peak (non-Day) Single it is sort-of analogous to.

 

[yorkie]

I don't think it should be issued as a "Day" ticket; that's poor implementation by ATW.

However the fact is that it is - regardless of the erroneous 'end date' and complex conditions - valid, if nothing else because of the accompanying itinerary which validates it, and it's incorrect for Merseyrail or Virgin (who have a reputation for this sort of nonsense; example) to try to get out of honouring the contract.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However the fact is that it is - despite the erroneous name and complex conditions - valid, if nothing else because of the accompanying itinerary which validates it, and it's incorrect for Merseyrail or Virgin (who have a reputation for this sort of nonsense; example) to try to get out of honouring the contract.

And I agree with that, and as stated above think the RPI should have, if concerned by the erroneous text on the ticket, withdrawn it with a free replacement, not threatened a PF.

 

[bb21]

Interesting, I never knew any Day Single ever allowed overnight BoJ - indeed that was what I thought was the (only) difference between a Day Single and an Ordinary (for want of a better term) one.

The difference between a Day ticket and a non-Day ticket on the issue of overnight break of journey (pre-Nov 2011) is one of choice.

The former allowed an overnight break of journey if the journey could not be completed on the same day. The latter explicitly gave passengers the choice whether to have an overnight break of journey, irrespective of whether the journey could be completed on the same day. In both cases, the journey must be resumed before 1200 the following day, and no further BoJ was permitted.

The current permission on the non-Day tickets falls somewhere in between.

 

[Paul Kelly]

Day Singles are not valid for continuation of the journey overnight regardless of the situation; it MUST end at or before 0429. I contend that these tickets are erroneously issued as Day Singles when they should instead be issued as normal Singles, which would have "SEE RESTRCTIONS" in validity rather than "ON DATE SHOWN". Then there would not be a problem.

As it is, the tickets are (incorrectly) not valid for a journey including the overnight ferry, in my opinion.

I agree with this; the ticket is issued/defined incorrectly. But ticket inspecting staff should pass the ticket and report the error upstream to be fixed, rather than get nasty and stubborn about it.

 

[crehld]

Here we go again, jumping to conclusions without the slightest shred of evidence bar what the OP said was said and nothing about what was said to whoever was supposed to say this.

The whole episode was down to the OP not checking his ticket when he collected it and an online ticket would only be made by what you asked for.

Wow, it only took four replies following a legitimate complaint before someone questioned the OP's honesty!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exactly , all the ones who want to hang the inspector without a shred of evidence should hang their heads in shame

The OP has direct experience in the matter and has provided a detailed account by way of evidence. You have yet to provide any empirical evidence by way of cross examination.

The sad fact is mistakes with ticket printing happen and a very small minority of staff do not live up to the standards of professionalism and dedication shown by most railway staff. Rather than needlessly attacking the OP for making a legitimate complaint more effort should be focused on dealing with the errors in the system and on the few members of rogue and unprofessional staff.

 

[sheff1]

If it said ONLY ON DATE SHOWN I'd agree. However, just because something is valid ON DATE SHOWN, that doesn't mean that it can't be valid on other dates.

I fundamentally disagree, and if I were an RPI and you said that to me you would just have failed the attitude test and so the PF book would come out .

So, in your eyes, someone stating something which is true fails the attitude test just because you disagree with that factually correct statement.

 

[tsr]

So, in your eyes, someone stating something which is true fails the attitude test just because you disagree with that factually correct statement.

Fortunately, I do not believe Neil Williams is actually a member of rail staff.

FWIW, I feel (as someone trained in commercial duties on the National Rail network) that "On Date Shown" does indeed not deny it is valid on any other date, and I feel it is usually glossed over as a sort of "placeholder" in use of any more useful text. It may, for a few passengers here and there, serve as a reminder to check the date on their ticket once they have purchased it. I cannot possibly see how "Valid: On Date Shown" (or similar) can possibly deny provisions of the NRCoC and an official itinerary for a journey to be completed by travelling overnight.

 

[crehld]

So, in your eyes, someone stating something which is true fails the attitude test just because you disagree with that factually correct statement.

It wouldn't be the first time politely and patiently pointing out the correct validity of a ticket has led to the so-called attitude test being failed, regardless of the actual attitude being displayed.

Besides if anyone has failed the attitude test in the OP's case then it is the barrier staff at Lime Street!

 

[Muzer]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but if you were delayed by more than 30 minutes due to this incompetence you DEFINITELY need to submit a Delay Repay form and get some of your money back too!

You can get the form by clicking "Claim for a delay" here.

 

[Bavarian]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your opinion on this matter. It appears to be more complicated than I thought after all.

So far I've understood that a fare and its restrictions are being created by one specific train company and then somehow fed into the booking database to be used by any other TOC. This is actually much different from how rail fares work here in Germany, sorry for my confusion...
My fare was apparently set by Arriva Trains Wales. Then it wasn't Virgin's ticketing system that was faulty, because it just ticketed a fare that was incorrectly created by Arriva Trains Wales in the first place. I might better report this matter to Arriva then instead of Virgin.

tony6499, you might have misunderstood my first posting. Actually I did NOT notice this before the incident at Lime St. Collecting ToD I do a perfunctory check of the printed tickets of course, but I just failed to notice this validity issue which, as we see in this thread, appears to be rather complex anyway.
I might also point out that travelling from Belfast there is no National Rail ticket office to be found before reaching Lime St.
After all, my experience at the Lime St ticket office after the incident was that the young lady there seemed to be rather clueless about Sailrail in general (at Liverpool, mind you!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, in your eyes, someone stating something which is true fails the attitude test just because you disagree with that factually correct statement.

The way the OP put it was more than a little "smart alec"; taking that line with an RPI is not likely to work. The line of argument of it being wrongly issued (and explaining why) would be more likely to work.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The way the OP put it was more than a little "smart alec"; taking that line with an RPI is not likely to work. The line of argument of it being wrongly issued (and explaining why) would be more likely to work.

Is there an actual area between being a sub servant fool handing over monies for something you are fairly sure is incorrect and a smart Alec?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fortunately, I do not believe Neil Williams is actually a member of rail staff.

Indeed not, though I'm certain there are many who wouldn't accept the "smart alec" line being proposed rather than a fuller explanation.

I cannot possibly see how "Valid: On Date Shown" (or similar) can possibly deny provisions of the NRCoC and an official itinerary for a journey to be completed by travelling overnight.

Under the current T&C, all travel on Day Singles and outward Day Returns (which are the only tickets other than Day Rangers which should have that on them) must be completed by 0429 on day 2 with no exceptions (other than possible endorsement of a ticket in the event of delay) - thus I can't see any justification for saying that this ticket is anything other than an incorrect issue because it could, as issued, never be seen as valid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there an actual area between being a sub servant fool handing over monies for something you are fairly sure is incorrect and a smart Alec?

Yes, a polite explanation as to why the ticket is issued wrongly might be a good start. I believe the OP tried this and failed (which is why I believe the RPI in this case acted wrongly), but that is not a reason it isn't the right thing to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So far I've understood that a fare and its restrictions are being created by one specific train company and then somehow fed into the booking database to be used by any other TOC. This is actually much different from how rail fares work here in Germany, sorry for my confusion...
My fare was apparently set by Arriva Trains Wales. Then it wasn't Virgin's ticketing system that was faulty, because it just ticketed a fare that was incorrectly created by Arriva Trains Wales in the first place. I might better report this matter to Arriva then instead of Virgin.

Yes, I'd agree, as it is them that seems to have made the error, as alerting them is most likely to get it fixed. Though as others have said you may also wish to make a Delay Repay claim, and that in the first instance should go to the TOC who caused the delay by holding you up rather than reporting the issue and allowing travel (Merseyrail?). A complicated one!

 

[Bavarian]

The way the OP put it was more than a little "smart alec"; taking that line with an RPI is not likely to work. The line of argument of it being wrongly issued (and explaining why) would be more likely to work.

Just to clarify: that "smart alec line" wasn't used by me but suggested by another user. What I did was indeed an explanation as to my itinerary and why I had to continue my journey on the 20th after arriving on the overnight ferry.

I believe this person just lost his temper because he was tired from working the wee hours on a Saturday morning or something like that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just to clarify: that "smart alec line" wasn't used by me but suggested by another user. What I did was indeed an explanation as to my itinerary and why I had to continue my journey on the 20th after arriving on the overnight ferry.

Correct, sorry, I shouldn't have used the term OP as this caused confusion; I was referring to what EM2 posted upthread.

I believe this person just lost his temper because he was tired from working the wee hours on a Saturday morning or something like that.

Merseyrail staff seem to have a history of poor understanding of ticketing and procedures outside their small network, so I wouldn't be surprised if that rather than tiredness was the issue.

 

[crehld]

The way the OP put it was more than a little "smart alec"; taking that line with an RPI is not likely to work. The line of argument of it being wrongly issued (and explaining why) would be more likely to work.

And there was me thinking PFs should only be issued according to the penalty fare rules! Obviously holding a valid ticket is one of those cases where a PF should not be issued. Whether the passenger is a smart alec or not does not come into it. Oh, and pointing out facts about the ticket validity does not make one a smart alec!

 

[Bletchleyite]

And there was me thinking PFs should only be issued according to the penalty fare rules!

And quite evidently the RPI thought he was acting according to the rules, even if in fact he was not. Bringing on a confrontation is likely to just result in a load of hassle - that was my point.

Oh, and pointing out facts about the ticket validity does not make one a smart alec!

It rather depends how you point them out, and in any case I don't believe there are currently any tickets where (with the exception of extension to 0429) if correctly issued they would say valid "ON DATE SHOWN" and actually be valid past 0429 the following morning.

 

[EM2]

Indeed not, though I'm certain there are many who wouldn't accept the "smart alec" line being proposed rather than a fuller explanation.

And as I'm the 'smart alec' being referred to, I'd just like to point out that I am a member of rail staff

 

[Greenback]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your opinion on this matter. It appears to be more complicated than I thought after all.

Unfortunately, the UK rail ticketing system is far from straightforward. As you can see form this thread, even people who have a lot of knowledge on the subject don't always agree!

So far I've understood that a fare and its restrictions are being created by one specific train company and then somehow fed into the booking database to be used by any other TOC. This is actually much different from how rail fares work here in Germany, sorry for my confusion...

No need to apologise!

My fare was apparently set by Arriva Trains Wales. Then it wasn't Virgin's ticketing system that was faulty, because it just ticketed a fare that was incorrectly created by Arriva Trains Wales in the first place. I might better report this matter to Arriva then instead of Virgin.

That's correct, but it's Virgin's employee that also got it wrong, so I think you need to report the confrontation to them as well. Common sense dictates that an overnight service, whether it's a ferry or a train, is going to be valid for continuing a journey after 0429 the next morning, regardless of the wording on the ticket.

It's also correct to suggest that if the staff member had genuine concerns they could withdraw the ticket for investigation while allowing you to continue your journey by issuing a new ticket at no expense.

tony6499, you might have misunderstood my first posting. Actually I did NOT notice this before the incident at Lime St. Collecting ToD I do a perfunctory check of the printed tickets of course, but I just failed to notice this validity issue which, as we see in this thread, appears to be rather complex anyway.
I might also point out that travelling from Belfast there is no National Rail ticket office to be found before reaching Lime St.
After all, my experience at the Lime St ticket office after the incident was that the young lady there seemed to be rather clueless about Sailrail in general (at Liverpool, mind you!).

I do feel that Tony6499 has misunderstood what has happened, in their desire to defined a fellow member of staff. My view is the same as Yorkie though, it's attempting to defend the indefensible.

I thought it was pretty clear that you did not realise that the wording would cause a problem. Indeed, why should you think it would? I very much doubt that you are the first person to ever hold such a ticket, nor one with exactly the same wording.

thus I can't see any justification for saying that this ticket is anything other than an incorrect issue because it could, as issued, never be seen as valid.

Maybe it's a difference in definition of wording at play here. To me, saying something is an incorrect issue implies some sort of error on the part of the person or system that issued it, and which is a more isolated incident, if not a one off.

This is more of a problem with the way that the tickets have been set up, and, as such, I would expect all of the tickets issued to carry the same wording. There is an error here, for sure, but it's not at the point of issue, which for me, means that the term is not accurate.

Just to clarify: that "smart alec line" wasn't used by me but suggested by another user. What I did was indeed an explanation as to my itinerary and why I had to continue my journey on the 20th after arriving on the overnight ferry.

An explanation that is, after all, sensible and true. As has been said, overnight services can't work otherwise!

And quite evidently the RPI thought he was acting according to the rules, even if in fact he was not. Bringing on a confrontation is likely to just result in a load of hassle - that was my point.

It's a pretty nonsensical position for an RPI to take. They have, or at least should have, ways to check their knowledge, they have other actions that can be taken should they be convinced that a ticket is wrong, and the should remain polite and professional at all times.

Every one makes mistakes, and I can see why a gateline agent might get into a way of thinking on ticket dates. However, once it was explained that the passenger has arrived on an overnight ferry that should be the end of the matter.

There really is no excuse for the sort of behaviour that Bavarian reported as occurring.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's also correct to suggest that if the staff member had genuine concerns they could withdraw the ticket for investigation while allowing you to continue your journey by issuing a new ticket at no expense.

Yes, and this is what I think should happen in every occurrence of this type. If it doesn't get reported, it doesn't get fixed.

Maybe it's a difference in definition of wording at play here. To me, saying something is an incorrect issue implies some sort of error on the part of the person or system that issued it, and which is a more isolated incident, if not a one off.

Fair point, though I don't know what term I'd use to describe that.

There really is no excuse for the sort of behaviour that Bavarian reported as occurring.

I can't argue with that, but it seems yet another example of Merseyrail staff being clueless about anything other than returns to Liverpool. And I would be tempted to report the slur as racism (I had forgotten that but just reviewed the original post) - that is completely unacceptable from anyone in any form.

Merseyrail really do need to sort their staff training and supervisory system out, or if they really can't do that to seek to withdraw fully from the ATOC/RSP ticketing system and just do their own thing in blissful ignorance. There are too many of these issues being reported on here.

 

[Greenback]

Fair point, though I don't know what term I'd use to describe that.

I think I'd choose something like database error, inputting error or data error. The issuing system has just issued what it's supposed or been told to issue!

 

[Paul Kelly]

FWIW, I feel (as someone trained in commercial duties on the National Rail network) that "On Date Shown" does indeed not deny it is valid on any other date, and I feel it is usually glossed over as a sort of "placeholder" in use of any more useful text.

I have to disagree with this. Before the ticket I have seen being discussed here, in my experience "ON DATE SHOWN" has been accurate on the tickets it has been shown on, with only the usual exceptions applying (pre-2011, valid past the next day 0230 cut-off if continuing on the same train and no more changes, after 2011, valid up to and including 0429 with no further travel allowed after that). Tickets with more complicated "it depends" type of validity generally showed "AS ADVERTISED" or sometimes "SEE RESTRICTIONS", which I agree could be described as placeholders, and in my experience this usage has been fairly consistent, even if people didn't really notice it (as this thread seems to show).