How strict are ticket inspectors on Railcards?

[gray1404]

There is (or possibly was, since I haven't encountered him for a while) a conductor on Southeastern High Speed who makes everyone take their railcards out of their holders and turns them over to check that they've been signed.

I don't know whether he's ever actually issued a penalty fare for invalid railcard when it hasn't been signed, but I've heard him threaten to on a number of occasions.

While he's absolutely within his rights here, would most consider this to be unnecessary pedantry? After all, if it has been signed he doesn't then get you to reproduce your signature on a separate piece of paper to demonstrate that it is indeed your Netword Card.

Even though he may be within he rights, he is not going to be very popular. It could also be argued that it does not amount to good customer service. People who appear to be going out of their way to catch people out are never well liked or received both by the public or others they have to work with.

 

[Romilly]

It has always seemed to me that the requirement for a railcard to be signed makes more sense when the railcard doesn't incorporate a photo of each holder, although I appreciate that it can also be said that signing can be readily-available evidence of the holder's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the railcard.

 

[grumblingalong]

In my experience, it's actually the other way around - the most common problem with the 16-25 railcards seems to be that they are out of date by a few days (okay, occasionally by a few months!). With the SNR railcard, I regularly hear "I never bring that with me", "I didn't know I needed it", "I'm over 65 so I get the discount" or complaints about having to find it (bottom of bag, once even buried in a suitcase).

I treat all railcards the same when checking tickets, if your ticket is discounted you need to show the railcard. If you can't then you either pay the excess or buy a new ticket (which option depends very much on the attitude of the passenger). I have, on occasion, allowed travel through to the next booking office and waited a couple of minutes to allow renewal of a SNR card, particularly if the mistake appears genuine and I'm confident the train won't actually be delayed.

Couldn't have said it better myself, I've had SNR cards out of date by a few years as they didn't know to renew it. It frustrates me the attitude older people have when being asked for it, some can be incredibly nasty where I've not once had an issue with a 16-25 holder.

 

[beeza1]

If you are so forgetful why get a railcard?

I can't remember!

 

[trentside]

Even though he may be within he rights, he is not going to be very popular. It could also be argued that it does not amount to good customer service. People who appear to be going out of their way to catch people out are never well liked or received both by the public or others they have to work with.

They also tend to make themselves unpopular with managers, who get sick of the numerous complaints. This is even more true now, in the days of social media. I think my company certainly prefers us to use our discretion in certain circumstances, as it reflects better on them.

I personally always try to check railcards, unless I'm on a particularly busy train, when I also tend to do a random sample. I also tend to make announcements that specifically request railcards be out and ready as it slightly cuts down on those looking in the bottom of bags etc!

 

[EssexGonzo]

My two lads tell me that they're always asked on trains with guards but rarely when the barriers beep.

 

[father_jack]

I have found they are much less likely to check a disabled persons railcard for some reason.

Took a DIS railcard from someone a while back who sung like a canary when questioned. "A bloke in the Legion club gives it around to all of us when we go down Weston......". Very easy check is "have you anything else with your name on it", genuine people don't bat an eyelid.

 

[suzanneparis]

Just to confirm are you saying that if someone forgets their railcard, they are liable to be prosecuted? Even if they subsequently prove that they do indeed have a railcard and did at the time of the 'offence' ?

That seems rather harsh. I have never forgotten my railcard - yet! But I can imagine, as I get older, becoming more forgetful.

 

[najaB]

Just to confirm are you saying that if someone forgets their railcard, they are liable to be prosecuted? Even if they subsequently prove that they do indeed have a railcard and did at the time of the 'offence' ?

If they forget their railcard, they are liable to pay the full fare for the journey they are making (if that should be the Anytime or Off-Peak fare is a matter for which there is no clear authoritative answer).

Only if they refuse to pay this fare would the possibility of prosecution enter the frame.

 

[island]

If they forget their railcard, they are liable to pay the full fare for the journey they are making (if that should be the Anytime or Off-Peak fare is a matter for which there is no clear authoritative answer).

Only if they refuse to pay this fare would the possibility of prosecution enter the frame.

That's not correct. A person who does not have a Railcard when using a Railcard-discounted ticket does not have a valid ticket, and has therefore committed the criminal offence of joining a train without a valid ticket contrary to section 18 (1) of the Railway Bylaws.

 

[najaB]

That's not correct. A person who does not have a Railcard when using a Railcard-discounted ticket does not have a valid ticket, and has therefore committed the criminal offence of joining a train without a valid ticket contrary to section 18 (1) of the Railway Bylaws.

That is correct. However both the NRCoC and the T&Cs for the railcard state that if you don't present the railcard you will be required to pay for a full price ticket. I doubt any TOC would attempt to prosecute without first requesting payment as per the above.

 

[gray1404]

Very easy check is "have you anything else with your name on it", genuine people don't bat an eyelid.

I see nothing in the terms and conditions that state that to travel using a disabled persons, or other, railcard then you have to present something with your name on/ or some ID in order to use it.

 

[najaB]

I see nothing in the terms and conditions that state that to travel using a disabled persons, or other, railcard then you have to present something with your name on/ or some ID in order to use it.

I don't believe that father_jack said that ID was required. It does, however, seem to be a sensible way to detect/confirm suspected misuse.

 

[Lockwood]

Last time I was coming down from Waterloo, there was a very reasonable guard on board.

He'd asked a passenger for their ticket and rail card. Couldn't find their railcard. "Ok, that's fine. You look for it and I'll be back up when I've finished checking everyone else."
Guard comes back a while later. "Found it yet? Ok. I'm going to have to issue you an excess fare. Keep looking. If you find it by the time you get to where you're going, I can issue you a refund for the excess."

No arguing and no wailing/gnashing of teeth from the passenger. Nice to see a situation go so smoothly.

From the phone calls that the passenger was making when the guard had moved on, it did seem like they had genuinely misplaced it - calling where they had come from asking if it was there, if they had left it in such and such a place when they took some stuff out of a bag. No, I wasn't trying to eavesdrop; they just had a voice that carried.

 

[island]

That is correct. However both the NRCoC and the T&Cs for the railcard state that if you don't present the railcard you will be required to pay for a full price ticket. I doubt any TOC would attempt to prosecute without first requesting payment as per the above.

I don't have your level of confidence. And anything in T&Cs/NRCoC will yield to actual laws.

 

[gray1404]

I don't believe that father_jack said that ID was required. It does, however, seem to be a sensible way to detect/confirm suspected misuse.

I never said for one moment that he said ID was required. However, rail staff on the front line are not allowed to add to the terms and conditions of either ticket or railcard issue. Therefore, a customer carrying their ticket and railcard only (or not wishing to show anything further) is not falling short of the terms and conditions they are travelling subject to. Furthermore, not having ID/something else with the passenger's name on is not in its self sufficient grounds to suspect or claim railcard misuse.

 

[najaB]

Furthermore, not having ID/something else with the passenger's name on is not in its self sufficient grounds to suspect or claim railcard misuse.

Perhaps you are missing the point. The guard would only ask for something else with the passenger's name if they already had reason to suspect that there is something going on.

 

[alxndr]

I don't believe that father_jack said that ID was required. It does, however, seem to be a sensible way to detect/confirm suspected misuse.

It's something also done by bouncers/bar staff when suspicious of ID, several times I've been asked to show other cards because I look about 14. Not proof in and of itself, but a good indicator that everything is indeed above board.