Ticket Inspectors And Railcards

[Rick1984]

I don't think I've been asked to produce it in the year my wife and I have had a Two Together Railcard, which actually leaves me a little deflated!

 

[Shaggy]

I use my PRIV railcard quite regularly and only once (on HS1) have I been asked to show it upon a ticket check.

Kinda surprising seeing the massive discount it offers.

 

[Clip]

I think he does have a point. I fully agree that staff concerned were just doing their job and probably shouldn't have been criticised, but the signature on the Railcard itself is pointless imo, for the very simple reason that the issuing of a Railcard is subject to acceptance of the terms and conditions, either by a signature on the application form, or ticking a box on online forms, so what additional purpose does the signature on the Railcard serve?

I can understand the point of taking a Railcard out of the wallet to check whether it is genuine, but that can be equally explained to punters.

As can explaining to them that it needs to be signed. You well know the railway has an issue with people printing their own tickets and as such it happens with railcards too as people never seem to think they will be taken out of the wallet. Unless you are under the impression that the railway should not try its best to combat fraudulent use of railcards?

It could even become printed on the railcard, in place of a signature box, "Use of this railcard shows acceptance of the terms and conditions" or something simular. I notice a simlar on my MyWaitrose card today.

The fact that ATOC are proposing a digital railcard clearly shows that it is not vital to have a handwirtten signature on a railcard.

This is rubbish. The reasons for going digital is because everything is going that way from paying using your mobile or watch and M tickets so on and so forth not because as you claim its not vital to have it written signature.

The claims get more outlandish with every post.

 

[Kingsbury Jn.]

I have had some girl having a right tissy fit, screaming, crying, banging the tables and windows and following me down the train when I withdrew her expired railcard once. When I wouldn't give it back she got the station supervisor (who worked for a different TOC) at the next station. He came and demanded I gave it back as it wasn't my property and belonged to her! She never got it back, much to her obvious displeasure as she was crying and screaming obscenities at me as the train pulled away.

I never did find out why she was so attached to that one out of date railcard.

The odds are that it wasn't hers and she would have had to explain, to the holder, where it had gone!

 

[crehld]

This is rubbish. The reasons for going digital is because everything is going that way from paying using your mobile or watch and M tickets so on and so forth not because as you claim its not vital to have it written signature.

The claims get more outlandish with every post.

What then, in your view, is the purpose of having a written signature on a railcard? What advantages does it bring?

Note before there is any needless outrage, I do accept the railcard must be signed as per its conditions, I'm just interested to know what the rationale behind having a signature is.

 

[swt_passenger]

What then, in your view, is the purpose of having a written signature on a railcard? What advantages does it bring?

Note before there is any needless outrage, I do accept the railcard must be signed as per its conditions, I'm just interested to know what the rationale behind having a signature is.

You sign alongside the wording "I agree to the conditions of issue" on my Network Card, and on my Senior Card.

I guess it's their way of assuming you do actually know the conditions, when you fail to abide by them at some time down the road, such as 6 months after it ran out...

Presumably they'll treat ticking a box on a computerised application form, and accepting an 'I agree' splash screen when you open the future 'railcard app' for the first time, in the same way...

 

[455driver]

I use my PRIV railcard quite regularly and only once (on HS1) have I been asked to show it upon a ticket check.

Kinda surprising seeing the massive discount it offers.

As you can only get PRIV from ticket offices or guards (not TVMs or on line etc) why do you find it surprising.
The only way to get a PRIV you are not entitled to it is if somebody buys it for you and I can't think of many/any staff that would take the risk.

 

[Shaggy]

As you can only get PRIV from ticket offices or guards (not TVMs or on line etc) why do you find it surprising.
The only way to get a PRIV you are not entitled to it is if somebody buys it for you and I can't think of many/any staff that would take the risk.

Good point 455. I sit corrected.

 

[crehld]

You sign alongside the wording "I agree to the conditions of issue" on my Network Card, and on my Senior Card.

I guess it's their way of assuming you do actually know the conditions, when you fail to abide by them at some time down the road, such as 6 months after it ran out...

I do understand this position, but it doesn't quite stack up for me. For example, by using regular tickets I agree to the terms and conditions attached to these, but I am never asked to sign it to indicate my acceptance and understanding of these conditions - should I have signed every ticket I've been issued to indicate I agree to the terms and conditions? Have all of the tickets I have been issued been invalidated by my lack of signature? Does the fact I don't have to sign a ticket mean I don't have to abide by those conditions? (these are rhetorical questions)

Clearly then then the provision of a signature does nothing to confirm one's acceptance of ticket / railcard terms and conditions, given this is achieved through the act of using said ticket / railcard.

The requirement to write one's signature on the back of a railcard therefore strikes me as nothing more than to reinforce some sort of tradition or social norm. Unless someone has a more plausible explanation?

 

[Romilly]

I suppose that one way of looking at it is that, for railcards that don't include photos (e.g. network cards, family & friends railcards), signatures are (in the absence of a photo) a way of safeguarding non-transferability. But that doesn't explain why a signature is still required for a railcard that includes or is accompanied by photo ID.

 

[Clip]

What then, in your view, is the purpose of having a written signature on a railcard? What advantages does it bring?

Note before there is any needless outrage, I do accept the railcard must be signed as per its conditions, I'm just interested to know what the rationale behind having a signature is.

It has already been answered.

I don't work for ATOC nor know why they still require you to sign on the back however until they change it then it is something that must be done. Its not hard to do im sure it takes only a matter of seconds, in fact I know it does so why is everyone having such a flap about it Ill never know.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do understand this position, but it doesn't quite stack up for me. For example, by using regular tickets I agree to the terms and conditions attached to these, but I am never asked to sign it to indicate my acceptance and understanding of these conditions - should I have signed every ticket I've been issued to indicate I agree to the terms and conditions? Have all of the tickets I have been issued been invalidated by my lack of signature? Does the fact I don't have to sign a ticket mean I don't have to abide by those conditions? (these are rhetorical questions)

?

This is getting into the realms of daftness - again.

There is no requirement to sign your ticket as acceptance of the T&C but there is for your railcard.

Im not being funny but are some of you actually trolling here because for grown ups you don't seem to have much grasp of something so basic.

 

[bb21]

It has already been answered.

I don't work for ATOC nor know why they still require you to sign on the back however until they change it then it is something that must be done. Its not hard to do im sure it takes only a matter of seconds, in fact I know it does so why is everyone having such a flap about it Ill never know.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


This is getting into the realms of daftness - again.

There is no requirement to sign your ticket as acceptance of the T&C but there is for your railcard.

Im not being funny but are some of you actually trolling here because for grown ups you don't seem to have much grasp of something so basic.

Who is having a flap? Can the point of this practice not be discussed? The question remains unanswered. What is the point? You sign the application form, or tick a box in an online application, to indicate that you accept the terms of the Railcard, so what is the point of requiring the Railcard to be signed? It is a redundant exercise. It serves no purpose that I can see. Everything it shows would have been covered by the application process for the Railcard.

If you confiscate an unsigned Railcard in an incident where the owner uses a discounted ticket against the terms of the Railcard, for example, using a Y-P discount below minimum fare before 1000, then refusing to pay the excess up to the minimum fare, is the railway industry really going to accept that the terms of the Railcard (minimum fare) should not be enforced because the holder did not agree to it (by signing the Railcard)?

If staff wants to check the Railcard for forgery, etc, there is a host of excuses they can use. Anyone who throws a hissy fit if asked to take it out out the wallet will do so regardless of the reason the guard gave.

 

[Clip]

Who is having a flap? Can the point of this practice not be discussed? The question remains unanswered. What is the point? You sign the application form, or tick a box in an online application, to indicate that you accept the terms of the Railcard, so what is the point of requiring the Railcard to be signed? It is a redundant exercise. It serves no purpose that I can see. Everything it shows would have been covered by the application process for the Railcard.

If you confiscate an unsigned Railcard in an incident where the owner uses a discounted ticket against the terms of the Railcard, for example, using a Y-P discount below minimum fare before 1000, then refusing to pay the excess up to the minimum fare, is the railway industry really going to accept that the terms of the Railcard (minimum fare) should not be enforced because the holder did not agree to it (by signing the Railcard)?

If staff wants to check the Railcard for forgery, etc, there is a host of excuses they can use. Anyone who throws a hissy fit if asked to take it out out the wallet will do so regardless of the reason the guard gave.

Those having a flap are those who are constantly asking why its there and why it should be done even though the answers have already been given.

Maybe direct the amin question as to why its there to ATOC the body who actually run the scheme. I agree its redundant nowadays but it is not within my realm nor JD to remove it. However it is within the realm of my colleagues to check that it is signed so that people accept the T&Cs for it.

Its just a big circle with a different way of asking the same question again and again.

 

[crehld]

Those having a flap are those who are constantly asking why its there and why it should be done even though the answers have already been given.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking why a railcard should be signed. I have already clearly stated that I accept it must be signed as this is what the terms and conditions of the railcard state (you quoted me earlier stating this explicitly, so am somewhat bemused as to why this has caused you to become confused here).

Rather I seek to understand the underlying rationale behind inserting the requirement to have railcards signed in the terms and conditions. I am interested to know what benefit such a condition offers.

I ask not because I am in a flap (I am not) nor because I object to having to sign my railcard (I do not), but because I am genuinely interested to know what benefit signing the back of a railcard offers both the railcard issuer and the railcard holder (beyond confirming it's validity as per the terms and conditions).

I apologize if I cannot express this with greater clarity.

 

[Haywain]

As you can only get PRIV from ticket offices or guards (not TVMs or on line etc) why do you find it surprising.
The only way to get a PRIV you are not entitled to it is if somebody buys it for you and I can't think of many/any staff that would take the risk.

Sadly, there are a few staff who are daft enough to do that - being 'hard of thinking' isn't restricted to those working outside of the rail industry.

Having said that, I always produce my Priv card with my tickets, so the problem just doesn't arise.

 

[Clip]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking why a railcard should be signed. I have already clearly stated that I accept it must be signed as this is what the terms and conditions of the railcard state (you quoted me earlier stating this explicitly, so am somewhat bemused as to why this has caused you to become confused here).

Rather I seek to understand the underlying rationale behind inserting the requirement to have railcards signed in the terms and conditions. I am interested to know what benefit such a condition offers.

I ask not because I am in a flap (I am not) nor because I object to having to sign my railcard (I do not), but because I am genuinely interested to know what benefit signing the back of a railcard offers both the railcard issuer and the railcard holder (beyond confirming it's validity as per the terms and conditions).

I apologize if I cannot express this with greater clarity.

As I have said ask ATOC it is their product now which they inherited from BR
so they will know why. I don't. I just know that it has to be done.

 

[jon0844]

That's not my experience on HS1, it's rare to have my ticket checked. It would be better if they spent less time spouting inane drivel on the PA and did more ticket checks. I'm referring to all the "On behalf of myself, the driver, everyone at Southeastern, the lady who made my sandwiches and the managing director's new puppy "fluffy" I'd like to thank you for travelling with Southeastern. ......" rubbish.

It's so you can feel you're getting value for money when spending £5 return (with railcard discount) from St Pancras to Stratford International, when your day Travelcard cost only £8.90 from Hatfield...!

Even on longer trips on HS1, a ticket check is by no means guaranteed these days.

 

[gray1404]

As can explaining to them that it needs to be signed. You well know the railway has an issue with people printing their own tickets and as such it happens with railcards too as people never seem to think they will be taken out of the wallet. Unless you are under the impression that the railway should not try its best to combat fraudulent use of railcards?




This is rubbish. The reasons for going digital is because everything is going that way from paying using your mobile or watch and M tickets so on and so forth not because as you claim its not vital to have it written signature.

The claims get more outlandish with every post.

I never once said that the only reason for going digital was so there was not handwritten signature. Merely, the fact that it is now possible to go digital means it is not 100% vital to have such a signature because acceptance of the terms and conditions has already been confirmed elsewhere. I notice that both myself and other posters on here to have to point out to you what they mean because you often misunderstand things.

 

[hounddog]

I don't work for ATOC nor know why they still require you to sign on the back however until they change it then it is something that must be done. Its not hard to do im sure it takes only a matter of seconds, in fact I know it does so why is everyone having such a flap about it Ill never know.

It also only takes a second or two for the issuing clerk to tell me to sign it. But four or five in a row haven't done so. There's nothing on the face of the card that says it has to be signed. Why would I look on the back unless it's pointed out to me? Particularly when I've already signed the application form?

 

[PermitToTravel]

As you can only get PRIV from ticket offices or guards (not TVMs or on line etc) why do you find it surprising.
The only way to get a PRIV you are not entitled to it is if somebody buys it for you and I can't think of many/any staff that would take the risk.

People have posted on this forum after being caught with PRIV tickets they're not entitled to; they're getting them somehow

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The requirement to write one's signature on the back of a railcard therefore strikes me as nothing more than to reinforce some sort of tradition or social norm. Unless someone has a more plausible explanation?

I am surprised by this. It has always been perfectly obvious to me why Railcards must be signed by their rightful user. But now that you ask, I can't recall that 'perfectly obvious' reason being explained in any documentation.

The 'perfectly obvious' reason is to provide a mechanism for verifying that a journey undertaken with a ticket which has been discounted by a Railcard can be uniquely correlated with the person to whom the card was issued. Similar requirements are in place for writing cheques, for receiving roadside assitance, for membership to recreational facilities, and others; all with the same intention, to provide a mechanism to correlate the person presenting the Railcard with the person to whom it was issued.
I do agree that those Railcards which also include a photograph of the person to whom it was issued provides a similar mechanism for the verification of identity; but not all railcards include that feature, and it is (in general terms) safer to have multiple systems of protection in force, rather than one, to protect a revenue stream from abuse.

 

[sheff1]

I am surprised by this. It has always been perfectly obvious to me why Railcards must be signed by their rightful user. But now that you ask, I can't recall that 'perfectly obvious' reason being explained in any documentation.

The 'perfectly obvious' reason is to provide a mechanism for verifying that a journey undertaken with a ticket which has been discounted by a Railcard can be uniquely correlated with the person to whom the card was issued. Similar requirements are in place for writing cheques, for receiving roadside assitance, for membership to recreational facilities, and others; all with the same intention, to provide a mechanism to correlate the person presenting the Railcard with the person to whom it was issued.
I do agree that those Railcards which also include a photograph of the person to whom it was issued provides a similar mechanism for the verification of identity; but not all railcards include that feature, and it is (in general terms) safer to have multiple systems of protection in force, rather than one, to protect a revenue stream from abuse.

This makes sense, although having held many railcards over the years (none of which required a supporting photo) I don't remember anyone looking at my signature on the back and am absolutely certain that I have never been asked to sign something so that my signature can be compared against the one on the railcard.

 

[gray1404]

This makes sense, although having held many railcards over the years (none of which required a supporting photo) I don't remember anyone looking at my signature on the back and am absolutely certain that I have never been asked to sign something so that my signature can be compared against the one on the railcard.

I do not even know if the TOCs are allowed to ask you to provide a sample signature to prove it matches the one on the railcard.

 

[island]

I do not even know if the TOCs are allowed to ask you to provide a sample signature to prove it matches the one on the railcard.

Of course they are allowed to ask. Just like I am allowed to ask you to give me twenty quid, and you are allowed to refuse. The difference is that refusing to give a sample signature in the event the ownership of a Railcard is in doubt may be grounds for the withdrawal of the Railcard and ticket for investigation.

 

[crehld]

I am surprised by this. It has always been perfectly obvious to me why Railcards must be signed by their rightful user. But now that you ask, I can't recall that 'perfectly obvious' reason being explained in any documentation.

The 'perfectly obvious' reason is to provide a mechanism for verifying that a journey undertaken with a ticket which has been discounted by a Railcard can be uniquely correlated with the person to whom the card was issued. Similar requirements are in place for writing cheques, for receiving roadside assitance, for membership to recreational facilities, and others; all with the same intention, to provide a mechanism to correlate the person presenting the Railcard with the person to whom it was issued.
I do agree that those Railcards which also include a photograph of the person to whom it was issued provides a similar mechanism for the verification of identity; but not all railcards include that feature, and it is (in general terms) safer to have multiple systems of protection in force, rather than one, to protect a revenue stream from abuse.

Yes, this make sense. I have a 16-25 railcard, a two together railcard and a Dales railcard - two of which include photo ID and all three include my name already printed on the front of it and my signature on the back, and included an application process where I had to prove my identity, so I hadn't considered the possibility other railcards wouldn't have these multiple verification features. Nor had I considered the possibility that multiple verification features would provide added 'security'.

However, if this were the primary rationale behind having a signature on the railcard, why does the logic not follow through to other non transferable rail products (season tickets excepting of course)? For example, taken as a whole the revenue from undiscounted tickets far exceeds those from railcards. They are non-transferable yet remain open to abuse - more so given the lack of ID requirement. So why hasn't the railway industry seen fit to introduce such verification measures where the risk (in pecuniary terms) is arguably higher?

 

[gray1404]

The sgnature on my 3 year railcard (10 months left on it) has almost rubbed off now. That puts me in a "difficult" position. lol

 

[Clip]

I never once said that the only reason for going digital was so there was not handwritten signature. Merely, the fact that it is now possible to go digital means it is not 100% vital to have such a signature because acceptance of the terms and conditions has already been confirmed elsewhere. I notice that both myself and other posters on here to have to point out to you what they mean because you often misunderstand things.

Maybe if you wrote what you actually meant rather than something else then things would not get misunderstood. Or stop using over emotive language by calling my colleagues 'Jobsworths' also wouldn't get peoples backs up. Just a thought there for future.

 

[extendedpaul]

If an inspector felt that a railcard without a photo like a Network Card had been "borrowed" can they demand a signature fro the holder to compare it with the one on the card ?

And then confiscate it if refused or clearly a different signature ?

 

[island]

If an inspector felt that a railcard without a photo like a Network Card had been "borrowed" can they demand a signature fro the holder to compare it with the one on the card ?

And then confiscate it if refused or clearly a different signature ?

See my answer above in post 84.