Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
In short, yes. There's a thread on here by someone caught out by having purchased one prior to the change and having thought it applied to all of them.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Print at Home Ticket / 'e-ticket' - Refused travel
- Thread starter mattr2102
- Start date
- Status
In short, yes. There's a thread on here by someone caught out by having purchased one prior to the change and having thought it applied to all of them.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,468
Please discuss airline boarding pass matters elsewhere. I have asked once and am not prepared to ask again. Thank you.
headshot119
Established Member
However I can see how confusion rains where buying the same ticket , or at least similar from another vendor has completely different conditions.
There really is no logical reason that Print at home tickets actually need to be printed. If I print it I can print multiple copies, if I have it as a PDF on my phone I can have multiple copies.
I agree that there's no logical reason, but that's the rules. But you can't just ignore rules that don't make sense, you push to get them changed.
...therefore, I'd keep pushing it, and see if the press are interested. They'll probably cave in eventually, especially if the other member who posted last month also keeps pestering.
I'll send a PM now to some people who might be interested...
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,021
I'm going to disagree with you here and for one simple reason.
Virgin Trains West Coast do allow you to display your e- ticket as PDF on your mobile.
OK, there are caveats here as it's only available on 'selected routes' and those aren't defined - but I bet you that means 'journeys which are wholly on VTWC services'. And you have to choose the 'e-ticket (mobile barcode ticket) option, but it's not clear if this is a completely new option or just relabeling of the existing e-ticket option.
So as the company does allow people to just display a PDF on a phone sometimes, it seems a churlish to refuse someone travel without even trying to read the barcode. (Although had the barcode been unreadable due to not following the 'correct' procedure, then that would be a different matter - but I seriously doubt it would be unreadable!)
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,830
The major caveat there is that it is tickets purchased to be displayed in the specified format, and bought from that specific date. It is far from a general statement applying to all tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
TOCs are often criticized on this forum for failing to move with the times, and are criticized almost as often for introducing new, and more modern, methods of ticketing because of perceived loss of rights, regardless of whether there is a real loss of rights. The people responsible might be forgiven for feeling that they can't win.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And yet many, many thousands of people manage to get by perfectly happily with Self-Print/Print-at-Home tickets every single day. Proving that it really cannot be that difficult.
Last edited:
I agree; people seem to have no problem with Print-at-Home tickets which are displayed on mobile devices on Britain's worst train company, GTR!
If GTR can manage it, then it cannot be that difficult
Customer said:
GTR said:
Customer said:
https://twitter.com/GatwickExpress/status/716749191180128256GTR said:
Come on Virgin (I know you're reading this) if GTR (of all people) can accept it, you can too!
As you point out, the facility to do so was enabled for bookings from 3 August 2016.
The OP booked "a few months in advance", so he was under the old TnCs - therefore he had to print the ticket.
The OP was wrong, he admits he was wrong, and that's the position we are in.
All this is moot as they specifically state
Yet the OP bought it from The Trainline. Its a right bloody pain I can tell you that but when buying through a 3rd party you must adhere to what they say as a condition of buying from them.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,021
Would the ticket checking staff been aware of any of that at the time?
You're looking at the situation from a narrow viewpoint, one where "the rules" are more important than the effect. Was the barcode readable? If person A is allowed to show a PDF on their phone, but person B is not then that is a ridiculous state of affairs.
The e-ticket is merely a tool and if the barcode was readable then it was simply petty to deny travel, whatever "the rules" are.
Last edited:
I ask again, where does well-intended 'bending the rules' end and a free for all start?
If the rules don't make sense, get them changed.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,021
Well clearly they have been changed. VT allow passengers to display e-ticket PDFs on their mobile phones. Refusing to accept one because it wasn't bought directly from VT is just pathetic.
It wasn't being pathetic, those are the rules. The staff don't deserve to be insulted for following the rules, the rules need changing.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,021
It is pathetic customer service. And as I have said, the rules have changed. Scan and if it works, allow travel. Simple. Happy customer, no need to waste resources dealing with a complaint.
For tickets bought directly from Virgin. The OP purchased their ticket from the TrainLine for whom I believe the 'must be printed' rule still applies.
Last edited:
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,021
But all National Rail e-Tickets use a standard design and layout. I can't imagine why anyone would want to examine the ticket to determine the point of purchase before scanning it, other than being just bloody minded.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's the thing - shock of all shocks - we actually agree! It is poor customer service. But it's not the fault of the 'troops on the ground', they didn't make the rules they just follow them. So it's not fair to brand the train manager/guard as either petty or pathetic.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's where common sense comes into play. A good company will allow their staff to exercise common sense and discretion and good staff will be able to apply it.
In the case of GTR, the official published condition is that you have to print the ticket onto paper. But the instruction given to staff is that passengers who do not do so are not penalised if they are able to show it on an electronic device.
There are many examples where the official conditions are more onerous than the actual rule applied by the train company, such as break of journey.
But none of this helps the OP, and does not alter the fact that pursuing the case is likely - but not guaranteed - to result in Virgin relenting, especially if put under pressure from the media.
I've already alerted some members of this forum and I've put the OP in touch with the passenger who had the similar issue from Wigan. I am prepared to help fight this battle until it's won.
You misunderstand. I have already effectively said the rules are crap and I don't like them.
To get the OP's money back you have to think like the people dealing with the claim....
The OP was foul of the TnCs and Virgin are within their rights to do what they did. The skilful part is approaching it in the right way to get the money back...
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,468
None of this discussion going around in circles helps the OP.
I think it has been clearly established that the OP fell foul of the terms of their ticket (which was acknowledged), and that Virgin were correct to charge a new ticket (mean-spirited as they may be as some would argue).
We have also established that Virgin could use discretion to refund the additional ticket purchased, and it would probably be a sensible thing to do, but there is no compulsion.
Can I just remind everyone that the disputes area of the forum is strictly to be used to help those who need it. Off-topic discussion, including how the current system can be improved, are generally not allowed as the thread can quickly become bloated and the core message easily lost.
Any personal bickering is strictly forbidden.
Please ensure that any further contribution to this thread is of direct help to the OP. Anyone wishing to discuss related topics can do so in a separate thread in an appropriate area.
Thank you.
I think it has been clearly established that the OP fell foul of the terms of their ticket (which was acknowledged), and that Virgin were correct to charge a new ticket (mean-spirited as they may be as some would argue).
We have also established that Virgin could use discretion to refund the additional ticket purchased, and it would probably be a sensible thing to do, but there is no compulsion.
Can I just remind everyone that the disputes area of the forum is strictly to be used to help those who need it. Off-topic discussion, including how the current system can be improved, are generally not allowed as the thread can quickly become bloated and the core message easily lost.
Any personal bickering is strictly forbidden.
Please ensure that any further contribution to this thread is of direct help to the OP. Anyone wishing to discuss related topics can do so in a separate thread in an appropriate area.
Thank you.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
mattr2102, I think the crucial question in all this is right in the middle of one of your initial comments on this situation:
But whatever sense you draw from the contract you entered into, the crucial question is exactly that - what is the contract that you entered into?
Was it one in which :-
1) a Railway Company agreed to convey you from one place to another, and
2) you agreed to print and present a ticket which would authorise that travel?
It was, wasn't it?
If the question of 'sense', or your curiosity in understanding 'why' such an option for the contract is offered, is paramount, then surely that would be an excellently appropriate question for a widely publicised debate among informed people in the various communities involved, such as passenger groups, railway companies, the government's Transport Department, IT contractors, local authorities and others. But NOT as an after-the-event attempt to undermine an entirely correct attempt to recover the fare due from a passenger who didn't print their print at home ticket?
I won't dissagree with you (though that's not the conclusion I came to when buying a 'Print at Home' ticket).
But whatever sense you draw from the contract you entered into, the crucial question is exactly that - what is the contract that you entered into?
Was it one in which :-
1) a Railway Company agreed to convey you from one place to another, and
2) you agreed to print and present a ticket which would authorise that travel?
It was, wasn't it?
If the question of 'sense', or your curiosity in understanding 'why' such an option for the contract is offered, is paramount, then surely that would be an excellently appropriate question for a widely publicised debate among informed people in the various communities involved, such as passenger groups, railway companies, the government's Transport Department, IT contractors, local authorities and others. But NOT as an after-the-event attempt to undermine an entirely correct attempt to recover the fare due from a passenger who didn't print their print at home ticket?
It seems quite reasonable to me for a company to require tickets to be printed if it so chooses, as long as it makes this clear prior to purchase. Printed tickets can be marked during a ticket inspection in a way that ones shown on electronic devices cannot be.
But the Agent acting for the Railway Companies during the sale - TheTrainLine gave him the impression that on the phone was acceptable. Surely this changes the matrix somewhat.
Did they? How?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think there are basically two lines of discussion. One is whether VT should change their policy (and for new bookings via their own website it appears they have, so it is clearly feasible to do so). Another is what they should do in respect of this situation. To me a gesture of goodwill would be sensible, and the OP would do well to write in apologetically asking for one.
Does anyone have an example of one of the VT emailed tickets? Do they differ from the standard ATOC/RSP ones with regard to security measures which make printing actually necessary for one but not the other?
Does anyone have an example of one of the VT emailed tickets? Do they differ from the standard ATOC/RSP ones with regard to security measures which make printing actually necessary for one but not the other?
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing.
And I've used PDFs numerous times to get into venues, confirm my attendance at events etc (never on a train, mind) and at worst you need to zoom in to enlarge the barcode/QR code.
To me the e in e-ticket suggests electronic, so printing seems odd and a waste of paper if you can display on a phone screen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
By rights, as long as the first 12 digits are the same then it should be fine. But I can imagine the potential for grief there too, especially if only the last four digits are available to check!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Could this be that Virgin now have scanners that can read phone displays? Maybe they came up with the rule because they had laser based scanners that are crap at reading screens, rather than camera based ones that work fine?
Still a poor excuse though as that is their problem, not that of the customer. Of course you must abide by the rules but you can still complain!
Correct.
http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/files/Policydocuments/Ticketing.pdf
It can also be argued that it is common practice for the term "print" to not always refer to a physical copy be made with ink and paper, and that "Print @ Home" may not necessarily mean that a physical printed copy is required, as evidenced by the fact that some train companies absolutely do allow such products to be shown on mobile devices.
The rail industry wishes to "extend the use of e-ticketing", but right now I would say the actions of some train companies mean that I can only recommend people AVOID e-ticketing (at least as a default option; I'd be happy to recommend it where I know the train company definitely will not penalise people for making amendments and where a common sense policy is adopted in all aspects of e-ticketing)
But none of this helps the OP, who - presumably - is waiting to hear back from Transport Focus and Virgin Trains. And until we have any further information, there really isn't any point continuing this discussion further.
It's a battle that is worth fighting, but for which there is no guarantee of winning, and I don't think any recent discussion changes that!
- Status