East Mids Rover: not valid SOT-MKC direct?

[nedchester]

Sounds like VTWC are making things up.

Again!

 

[RJ]

It would be good if every ticket had a QR code which when scanned by a member of staff would show validity, be that a list of Permitted Routes and time restrictions for a point to point ticket (including an "is it valid by time to depart here on this train selected from a departure board" feature) or Rover validity.

But the problem in this case is the incorrect description. Someone not in the know would on reading that believe it was not valid via the Trent Valley - it clearly (wrongly) states it is valid via Bedford or Coventry only. The latter should really say Rugby which would solve the issue.

It is valid via Coventry so it isn't wrong. It also has a map which clearly shows the routes it is valid over!

 

[Silverdale]

Having refused to pay for a ticket, do you then refuse to give your name/address when ask

Someone not in the know would on reading that believe it was not valid via the Trent Valley - it clearly (wrongly) states it is valid via Bedford or Coventry only. The latter should really say Rugby which would solve the issue.

In any case, the word 'only' does not appear in the NRE blurb.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is valid via Coventry so it isn't wrong. It also has a map which clearly shows the routes it is valid over!

Allows travel north and east of Milton Keynes via Bedford or Coventry as far as Sheffield and Grimsby.

The man on the Clapham omnibus would read that as going via one of the two of those being mandatory. Goodness only knows why it doesn't say Rugby.

 

[Silverdale]

I think you underestimate the reasoning abilities of bus travellers. Just because the blurb says that travel is allowed via certain routes shown on the map, it doesn't imply that travel by any other mapped route isn't allowed.

 

[_toommm_]

What is the best way to deal with this sort of situation? What should you do if you are travelling using a ticket which you are 100% certain that is valid and a TM refuses to accept it and tries to insist that you pay another fare? I accept that getting rude and abusive is not the answer and that you must try to remain calm and and as polite as possible in the situation. Do you eventually have to pay for another ticket and then claim the money back or do you completely refuse to pay.

I’ve never had anything like this happen to me when travelling by train but I have had it happen to me on buses with a perfectly valid multi operator ticket. I once had a First bus driver refuse to accept a valid Greater Manchester Wayfarer Ticket between Rochdale and Manchester. He said it wasn’t valid because it was printed on rail ticket stock and had the words words rail rover at the top. In this case I just gave up, got off, and caught the next bus. It wasn’t fair to hold up and delay a bus full of passengers and there was a queue behind me waiting to board. He was very determined and was not going to back down and let me travel.

This happened to me recently on TPE. I stayed calm, even after the TM embarrassing me and claiming I was defrauding the other passengers who payed top dollar. To try and defuse the situation I apologised if it seemed like it was getting angry (even though this was a less than empty apology). Eventually, after refusing to pay constantly and even inviting him to go ahead and call the police after he threatened to do so, he backed off in a huff.

I'd recommend staying calm, being overtly polite (but not sarcastic). Never pay for more tickets on board though, and make sure to complain afterwards. Record the audio if you can too...

 

[Tugzrule]

The problem with the QR/Aztec idea above is that she actually scanned my ticket after she’d checked it and it was only then she became properly unsure about its validity

After National Rail confirmed It i tagged VT in a reply asking if they were still stating the same point but funnily enough I didn’t get a response

 

[Polarbear]

The East Midlands rover is valid on all TOC's in the defined area, (with the exception of Hull Trains when they first started as I recall, though they are listed as participating now). Despite the ambiguity of some of the wording on the National Rail site, For me, that means the ticket is perfectly valid on Virgin WC from Milton Keynes northward.

Personally, I'd be making a written complaint to VTWC & pressing them on this. They have form for making up their own rules on ticket validity, and I find it increasingly difficult to accept that it's purely down to poor training.

 

[DarloRich]

I suspect it is just a cock up rather than a conspiracy. Someone has just made a mistake on a slightly esoteric product.

I know that view won't be shared by most here!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect it is just a cock up rather than a conspiracy. Someone has just made a mistake on a slightly esoteric product.

No, I agree it is probably a mistake in wording, but the misinterpretation is understandable given the erroneous wording. It needs to say Rugby and not Coventry.

 

[Silverdale]

The wording is not wrong. The ticket does allow travel via both Coventry and Bedford.

The logic-fail is by those who think that because the wording does not say that travel from MK is allowed via the Trent Valley, it must be not allowed.

 

[robbeech]

I suspect it is just a cock up rather than a conspiracy. Someone has just made a mistake on a slightly esoteric product.

I know that view won't be shared by most here!

I appreciate the view won’t be shared by some here, though I wouldn’t say most.

I for one think that the member of staff hasn’t received the necessary training on this product that they’re likely to see so few of. I do believe they probably handled the situation incorrectly though. I certainly don’t believe that they’re deliberately saying it isn’t valid knowing it is to make more money. That said, things like this do happen on the railway by a very small minority of staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The wording is not wrong. The ticket does allow travel via both Coventry and Bedford.

The logic-fail is by those who think that because the wording does not say that travel from MK is allowed via the Trent Valley, it must be not allowed.

It is at best confusing and misleading and is the direct cause of this issue. Wording indicating validity should always be clear and unambiguous, which this would be by the simple expedient of saying Rugby instead of Coventry.

 

[krus_aragon]

I appreciate the view won’t be shared by some here, though I wouldn’t say most.

I for one think that the member of staff hasn’t received the necessary training on this product that they’re likely to see so few of. I do believe they probably handled the situation incorrectly though. I certainly don’t believe that they’re deliberately saying it isn’t valid knowing it is to make more money. That said, things like this do happen on the railway by a very small minority of staff.

I'd append to that the possibility that when the front-line staff found they weren't trained/familiar with this product, they asked a more senior individual, and then stuck to the advice they'd been given. That supervisor could be the one to fit your description.

 

[robbeech]

Surely if a member of staff comes across something they’re unfamiliar with they would WANT to learn about its validity to further their own knowledge and skills.
Of course many of them do but we see a small number that are not so interested in the job which is a shame.

 

[Clip]

Surely if a member of staff comes across something they’re unfamiliar with they would WANT to learn about its validity to further their own knowledge and skills.
Of course many of them do but we see a small number that are not so interested in the job which is a shame.

It really is and theres less and less of those sorts of people out there.

 

[Silverdale]

It is at best confusing and misleading and is the direct cause of this issue. Wording indicating validity should always be clear and unambiguous, which this would be by the simple expedient of saying Rugby instead of Coventry.

If some people are going to be wilfully misleading or stupid enough to claim that by stating examples of valid travel, the NRE document implies that certain other travel isn't valid, the clearest and least ambiguous wording would be no wording at all. The ticket being valid by all services operated by the named operators within the map area and after hh:mm on weekdays. No exceptions, so no clarification needed.

Changing Coventry for Rugby would merely leave descriptions of travel being allowed from MK northwards via Rugby (or eastwards via Bedford).

What about travel southwards via Rugby, towards MK? What about travel to or from SoT? The VT operative would no doubt claim that because the NRE document doesn't specifically mention travel in that direction, or to/from that place, it isn't allowed on their Pendolino.

Would we then continue to indulge them by suggesting NRE edit further, or simply state, as we can right now, that by making their ridiculous claims as they have, VT is being wilfully misleading with the aim of trying to extort a fare from passengers who, as they surely must know, actually hold a valid ticket.

 

[ashworth]

The wording is not wrong. The ticket does allow travel via both Coventry and Bedford.

The logic-fail is by those who think that because the wording does not say that travel from MK is allowed via the Trent Valley, it must be not allowed.

Whether, the wording is right or wrong, or indeed ambiguous, does it really matter when the map clearly shows that the route is valid. Whenever I am using a rover ticket I suaually print off a copy of the map to carry with me, just in case of any problems, or I make sure that I know how to quickly access the map online on my phone. Fortunately, as yet, I have never met any TM or barrier staff who have caused me any problems when using this type of ticket. Quite the opposite, I usually find staff extremely friendly whenever I am travelling using a 7 Day Rover. As I said in my earlier post, it is bus drivers who are more of a problem when using some less seen multi operator tickets.

 

[221129]

Having refused to pay for a ticket, do you then refuse to give your name/address when ask.

Absolutely not! That is when you become likely to get into bother.

 

[221129]

The problem with the QR/Aztec idea above is that she actually scanned my ticket after she’d checked it and it was only then she became properly unsure about its validity

After National Rail confirmed It i tagged VT in a reply asking if they were still stating the same point but funnily enough I didn’t get a response

I had the same on VTEC with an ALR. Computer says ticket not valid... Facepalm...

 

[Polarbear]

This sort of issue seems to becoming more of a problem these days. What troubles me is that it's the customer that is made out to be in the wrong, and presumed at fault by the representative of the TOC.

I recall suggesting on another thread some time back, that staff responsible for revenue protection should be readily able to look up any ticket to check its validity. Instead, we have recurring instances where customers are sometimes being forced to pay again, where in fact a valid ticket is held.

Sorry, but the railway really should be doing better than making up stuff on the hoof. If they aren't sure, then they should not be disadvantaging the fare paying customer in any way.

 

[RJ]

I appreciate the view won’t be shared by some here, though I wouldn’t say most.

I for one think that the member of staff hasn’t received the necessary training on this product that they’re likely to see so few of. I do believe they probably handled the situation incorrectly though. I certainly don’t believe that they’re deliberately saying it isn’t valid knowing it is to make more money. That said, things like this do happen on the railway by a very small minority of staff.

Staff don't need to be trained on every single product out there.

They do need the tools and research skills to determine the validity of such tickets - or else knowledge of the correct procedure to handle them. Armed with these, the customer gets a hassle free journey, the member of staff learns something new and everyone is happy. It's good customer service.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Staff don't need to be trained on every single product out there.

They do need the tools and research skills to determine the validity of such tickets - or else knowledge of the correct procedure to handle them. Armed with these, the customer gets a hassle free journey, the member of staff learns something new and everyone is happy. It's good customer service.

Spot on. If someone feels the job includes the necessity of pulling up people for using tickets not valid for a particular routeing then they have to accept the need to learn and understand the rules that actually exist. My training included the guidance that if unsure and unable to find out in fairly short order then to let it go. My resultant attitude was that if I ended up letting one go I soon found out the actual validity to be better informed next time.

The tools very often do exist to allow such rule checking to take place but sadly some seem unwilling to use them.

 

[sheff1]

Surely if a member of staff comes across something they’re unfamiliar with they would WANT to learn about its validity to further their own knowledge and skills.
Of course many of them do but we see a small number that are not so interested in the job which is a shame.

There are, broadly, three 'types' of staff.

1. Those who do want to further their knowledge - they act as explained by Shaw S Hunter in post#53.

2. Those with no interest in furthering their knowledge and no desire to get involved in 'discussions'. These either do not check tickets at all, or wave everything through with a cursory glance.

Both of these groups cause no problems for people holding valid tickets. The issues are caused by the third group:

3. No interest in furthering their knowledge but every interest in making up their own rules (or unquestioningly accepting false rules made up by colleagues). These made up rules, seemingly invariably, involve refusing travel to those with valid tickets or, if the passenger is already travelling or has arrived at their destination, seeking to extract further payment which is not due.

This latter group, which is much smaller than the other two, would be quickly identified and 'dealt with' in most customer facing industries but not, it would appear, in many parts of the railway.

 

[robbeech]

More often than not when these members of staff from the third group do this, they get away with it, members of the public assume the staff now the rules so do not contest it. More revenue is made for the toc. There’s really little incentive for the toc to provide more training for staff as this may result in less revenue.
This third group is much smaller than the others and I for one am very glad of it.

 

[sheff1]

This third group is much smaller than the others.

Quite, I have amended my post to include that point.

 

[Segedunum]

I have unfortunately encountered a pair of Northern conductors in years past who frequently seemed to team up and make up rules on validity of Nexus tickets (usually something along the lines of 'that's not valid, get off') because they thought with me being about 14 at the time they could get away with it. At one point I was frogmarched off a train before it could even depart I complained and they cut it out, before disappearing (to me) from the role altogether shortly afterwards. Both in question were probably in the 'close to retirement, I've been here x years and I am always right' category.

Thankfully staff are usually in the first two groups mentioned by @sheff1 and I have never encountered any staff as bad as the aforementioned Northern staff ever since.

On topic, I've used the EM Rover from Stoke to Milton Keynes multiple times direct on VT and nobody has said a peep. Conductor either studied the ticket and was happy with it or just gave it an unbothered glance.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

There are, broadly, three 'types' of staff.

1. Those who do want to further their knowledge - they act as explained by Shaw S Hunter in post#53.

2. Those with no interest in furthering their knowledge and no desire to get involved in 'discussions'. These either do not check tickets at all, or wave everything through with a cursory glance.

Both of these groups cause no problems for people holding valid tickets. The issues are caused by the third group:

3. No interest in furthering their knowledge but every interest in making up their own rules (or unquestioningly accepting false rules made up by colleagues). These made up rules, seemingly invariably, involve refusing travel to those with valid tickets or, if the passenger is already travelling or has arrived at their destination, seeking to extract further payment which is not due.

This latter group would be quickly identified and 'dealt with' in most customer facing industries but not, it would appear, in many parts of the railway.

Tbf there are people in your "Group 2" who have reasonable knowledge of their own area and are happy to take limited "enforcing" action but will "wave the white flag" at something more esoteric like a long-distance ticket being used to pass through their area on a less than obvious route. Essentially they continue to use the old BR attitude towards routeing which was dominated by the idea of "Reasonable" routes long before anyone decided there was a need for "Permitted" routes. And regional rovers are often off their radar so validity will be loosely judged on name alone. Coast and Peaks is pretty vague!

As to the failure to deal with members of "Group 3", certainly as far as Guards are concerned, this is largely due to the understandable emphasis placed by managers on checking and maintaining their safety competence meaning that customer service expertise is judged more by the absence, or otherwise, of passenger complaints.

 

[cactustwirly]

The problem with the QR/Aztec idea above is that she actually scanned my ticket after she’d checked it and it was only then she became properly unsure about its validity

After National Rail confirmed It i tagged VT in a reply asking if they were still stating the same point but funnily enough I didn’t get a response

Aztec? What's that?
Thought only M tickets could be scanned?

 

[Kite159]

Aztec? What's that?
Thought only M tickets could be scanned?

Some tickets have QR codes printed on them which the guard can scan for more details, for example: