Tickets - who is at fault?

[Flamingo]

As a general observation, a lot of passengers, and posters, seem to imply that if there is a ticketing dispute, that the burden of proof that the passenger did pay the correct fare for the journey lies with the TOC, not the passenger.

Receipts, diary entries, "I can give you my rail-card number and you can look it up", all these are offered in lieu of a valid ticket and supporting railcard / reservation.

Who do people think the burden of proof should rest with; the TOC to prove the passenger did not purchase the ticket, or the passenger to ensure everything is correct?

I know what the CoC and bylaws say, it's just a point that seems open to debate.

(It would be enlightening if you could say if you are approaching this from the point of view of Rail staff, or passenger)

 

[driver9000]

If you bought it, it's up to you to be able to prove you bought it. It might not be the best analogy but if I bought a tin of beans, then took them back for a refund it would be up to me to prove I'd bought them from the shop I took them to (by receipt) not the shop staff to prove I bought them there. (staff view and passenger)

 

[RJ]

As a general observation, a lot of passengers, and posters, seem to imply that if there is a ticketing dispute, that the burden of proof that the passenger did pay the correct fare for the journey lies with the TOC, not the passenger.

And it is well publicised that one must hold a valid railcard in order to validate a ticket purchased at the corresponding concessionary rate. As a passenger I knew this and made sure I carried my railcard every day, along with my Zip and bank cards. My responsibility and I didn't expect anybody else to foot the bill if I didn't have it.

OOI where is this implicit statement regarding burden of proof being on the TOC displayed? Penalty Fare media explicitly states that appropriate supporting documents must be carried as does the website where customers confirm they read/understand that condition prior to purchase. And that was an observation I made as a passenger.

 

[MikeWh]

The one area where I firmly believe the burden of proof does lie with the TOC is with Oyster cards. If they haven't got a reader they have to take your word for it.

 

[cuccir]

As RJ notes, the T&Cs, if read, are generally fairly clear where responsibility lies. If you have a reservation/railcard related ticket, then you need the various paraphernalia to validate it; it's the passenger's responsibility. Of course, there are many cases (especially where other evidence is offered) where guards or RPIs chose to release the passenger from that responsibility.

{remove, duplicate of MikeWh's comment}

As has been noted in a few of the spate of threads on these sort of topics of late, in an ideal world passengers without, say, their railcard or reservation ticket would have to pay the full fare, get an unpaid fare notice or pay the penalty fare. They would then then have a certain time frame within which they could produce the railcard or reservation and claim back any money or have the unpaid fare notice cancelled, minus some sort of (reasonable!) admin fee.

 

[mrcheek]

The problem is that many years ago, some dumbass coined the term "the customer is always right", which, whilst it was once a sign of a company giving good service, has turned into a liars and idiots charter. Customers/passengers in Britain seem to think theyre always right, even when theyre wrong, just because of that magic yet erroneous phrase.

Time was when shops on the HIgh Street would give refunds on clothes to anyone, for any reason, eben if they had been worn and damaged and there was no receipt. Which led to a new form of shoplifting, where thieves entered a store, took an item, ripped off the price tag, and then took it to the refund desk....

All these people who complain about being treated like fare evaders when they dont have the right ticket or parts of ticket, try **** like this on the continent. Theyll arrest you.

 

[Failed Unit]

The problem is that many years ago, some dumbass coined the term "the customer is always right", which, whilst it was once a sign of a company giving good service, has turned into a liars and idiots charter. Customers/passengers in Britain seem to think theyre always right, even when theyre wrong, just because of that magic yet erroneous phrase.

Time was when shops on the HIgh Street would give refunds on clothes to anyone, for any reason, eben if they had been worn and damaged and there was no receipt. Which led to a new form of shoplifting, where thieves entered a store, took an item, ripped off the price tag, and then took it to the refund desk....

All these people who complain about being treated like fare evaders when they dont have the right ticket or parts of ticket, try **** like this on the continent. Theyll arrest you.

I think in the UK rail you are normally guilty until proven innocent and the TOC is always right. As a result you get people buying anytime tickets between say Edinburgh and Leeds in the fear that the off-peak ticket is not valid, costing them a fortune! (off-peak tickets valid all day on this route but the name implies that if you are getting the 0605 ticket it is not!)

 

[Traveller]

The one area where I firmly believe the burden of proof does lie with the TOC is with Oyster cards. If they haven't got a reader they have to take your word for it.

You should get a paper ticket everytime you swipe your oystercard - what happens if you swipe it then it fails when an inspector tries to read it?

 

[RJ]

You should get a paper ticket everytime you swipe your oystercard - what happens if you swipe it then it fails when an inspector tries to read it?

That would be a monumental waste of paper and cause issues with littering. It's an unnecessary measure when each successful validation is recorded on the card. I use a handheld reader to interrogate Oyster Cards and it works fine.

 

[Tom B]

The problem is that many years ago, some dumbass coined the term "the customer is always right", which, whilst it was once a sign of a company giving good service, has turned into a liars and idiots charter. Customers/passengers in Britain seem to think theyre always right, even when theyre wrong, just because of that magic yet erroneous phrase.

Unfortunately, many companies (particularly transport; but also utility companies, landlords etc) seem to use the notion that "the customer is an irritating little **** who gets in our way". Very Basil Fawlty.

 

[Traveller]

That would be a monumental waste of paper and cause issues with littering. It's an unnecessary measure when each successful validation is recorded on the card. I use a handheld reader to interrogate Oyster Cards and it works fine.

Oystercards do fail - what would happen if you swiped it then it failed? Passenger refuses to pay or give details because there's no reason why they should, police get called. Then what? Wait for the download and the passenger is proved correct!

 

[RJ]

Oystercards do fail - what would happen if you swiped it then it failed? Passenger refuses to pay or give details because there's no reason why they should, police get called. Then what? Wait for the download and the passenger is proved correct!

Has this ever happened to you?

 

[yorkie]

As a general observation, a lot of passengers, and posters, seem to imply that if there is a ticketing dispute, that the burden of proof that the passenger did pay the correct fare for the journey lies with the TOC, not the passenger.

It depends on the definition of "ticketing dispute"

Receipts, diary entries, "I can give you my rail-card number and you can look it up", all these are offered in lieu of a valid ticket and supporting railcard / reservation.

In these cases, no, it's the passengers responsibility.

Who do people think the burden of proof should rest with; the TOC to prove the passenger did not purchase the ticket, or the passenger to ensure everything is correct?

I know what the CoC and bylaws say, it's just a point that seems open to debate.

(It would be enlightening if you could say if you are approaching this from the point of view of Rail staff, or passenger)

In the specific cases you state regarding a lack of a railcard or ticket or reservation, clearly it's the customer's fault, and a new ticket should be purchased.

The only thing I would add is that if a reservation is lost but the customer is able to go online and confirm their reservation is for that train (NOT demand you, the guard, does it! that is clearly unreasonable!) then I would hope that discretion would be shown, indeed guards here have said they would show discretion in such cases. I see this as the passenger making a mistake but being able to prove it, and taking responsibility for proving it. If they lose their reservation and can't prove it then that's tough - you can't be expected to check.

I would be surprised if many (if any?) posters on this forum would blame a guard for charging for a new ticket if a railcard or ticket is lost, or a reservation is lost and no alternative proof can be given.

I am assuming that disputes regarding routeing and complex matters are beyond the scope of this question as they are completely different to the above scenarios and not mentioned in the original post, therefore I won't address them (and if there is a need to address them I suggest a new topic to avoid mixing these quite different issues!)

 

[Traveller]

Has this ever happened to you?

I've had an Oystercard fail, yes. But before I swiped it, not afterwards.

 

[sheff1]

As a general observation, a lot of passengers, and posters, seem to imply that if there is a ticketing dispute, that the burden of proof that the passenger did pay the correct fare for the journey lies with the TOC, not the passenger.


Who do people think the burden of proof should rest with; the TOC to prove the passenger did not purchase the ticket, or the passenger to ensure everything is correct?

There are (at least) two different broad types of ticketing disputes.

The first is straightfoward - it is the passenger's responsibilty to carry with them everything which the T&Cs state is required for the journey they are making - ticket, reservation, railcard, credit card (required for print at home tickets), voucher (for East Coast 'Reader Offer tickets) etc etc.

The second is where a TOC employee, or subcontractor, states that a ticket is not valid on a particular route or specific train (not talking about advance tickets here) when the passenger believes/knows it is. I could give a number of examples where I have been told this when my ticket, or the one I am trying to buy, is perfectly valid.

As a passenger, I do not believe I should have to carry print outs of the Routing Guide with me to prove that I can via go the route I am on. The burden should be on the TOC to prove why that route is invalid and a 'because I say so' is not proof. To do this the ticket checker would, of course, need access to the RG.

Similarly, if TOC employee says that a ticket is not valid on a specific train they should be able to prove why - the answer here is for them to show the passenger the relevant ticket restriction code, either in printed or electronic form. Again I should not have to carry print outs to prove that my off peak ticket is valid on an early morning train into London, for example.

 

[yorkie]

sheff1 - I can't fault that post, it's pretty much exactly what I was thinking! (BTW if you like Indian food and are in Sheffield next month get in touch if you would like to meet for a meal... ticketing issues are often a hot topic! )

Flamingo - when you see criticism of a guards' actions here, I believe you'll often find that the guard isn't acting in a way that you may do, based on the sensible approach to various scenarios that you have demonstrated on this forum. It is also worth considering that problems are likely to get posted here, rather than post a topic like "Help, my guard was friendly and helpful today, what do I do?" The reality of course is that the majority of journeys go without a hitch and the majority of staff are perfectly reasonable and fair, which isn't 'newsworthy' because it is common and expected (thank goodness!).

We have many guards here who, based on what they have posted, I believe do an excellent job and act in a way that is in the interests of genuine customers, such as yourself, CarterUSM, mumrar, Ferret, kwvr45 and others. I have seen good examples of showing discretion when appropriate to genuine passengers yet weeding out people who are lying. If all staff did this approach, rather than the approach some EC/Virgin staff have taken that gained their companies bad publicity (as documented in the media and discussed here), then rail travel would be an utter delight, complaints would be massively down, and revenue would be up, in my opinion.

When people make unfair assumptions or make false claims then people here will defend guards (and rightly so), e.g. a topic moaning about guards not checking tickets enough saw strong support for guards from the vast majority of respondents, and the Manchester to Guide Bridge incident saw the complainant, who was clearly in the wrong, widely condemned.

Perhaps it's time for another thread where we ask for experiences of good guards (we've had them in the past, before you joined)!

 

[Failed Unit]

I guess this very sad tail fits into this thread.

I purchased a Scottish executive ticket online from the east coast website between Glasgow and London. The travel was for 2 days time so it needed to be picked up from the fast ticket machine.

Those of you that know the ticket will know that it comes with a meal vouchers and a first class upgrade for the return journey. I went to the fast ticket machine no tickets at all. I went over to the booking office and they printed the tickets less the meal voucher and upgrade. I pointed this out and the person from Scotrail phoned east coast to sort it out. There was nothing that he could do so advised that I went to Waverley to sort it out.

On arrival at Waverley I went to the travel centre, East Coast staff told me that 1. I would have had this problem if I had picked it up from thier fast ticket machine (how I was suppose to get from Glasgow - Edinburgh to do that is a mystery) and 2. I was Scotrails problem as it was thier fast ticket machine / station that had caused the problem. Over to the duty manage at Scotrail and again after a call to East Coast they stated East Coast should be able print the missing parts of the ticket at Waverley and he would investigate what went wrong on thier part.

Back to East Coast same problem - they didn't want to know saying my issue was with Scotrail. I was getting annoyed by then and left - but did point out that legally my contract is with the point of sale which was them as I had used the website.

Not problem on the train, the gaurd probably knowing the ticket type didn't question me when I said why I was sat in first class without the supplement ticket. I paid for the meal and have sent the receipt over to East Coast demanding a refund and also pointing out that I bought a ticket to travel on a train, I don't care which TOC owns which station etc.

Not have much luck with tickets lately, but in this case it is another classic example of the non-existant level of service that passengers on the rail industry need to suffer. If I buy a suit from M&S in Glasgow and thier is a problem any M&S in the UK can refund or replace, shame the rail industry can't work like that - they are franchises afterall.

 

[penaltyfines]

And it is well publicised that one must hold a valid railcard in order to validate a ticket purchased at the corresponding concessionary rate. As a passenger I knew this and made sure I carried my railcard every day, along with my Zip and bank cards. My responsibility and I didn't expect anybody else to foot the bill if I didn't have it.

OOI where is this implicit statement regarding burden of proof being on the TOC displayed? Penalty Fare media explicitly states that appropriate supporting documents must be carried as does the website where customers confirm they read/understand that condition prior to purchase. And that was an observation I made as a passenger.

Couldn't you condense this message down into a few bullet points and post it in a new post, we might be able to get it pinned... then we can move on and ignore it rather than have it popping up on every post. :/

 

[RJ]

Couldn't you condense this message down into a few bullet points and post it in a new post, we might be able to get it pinned... then we can move on and ignore it rather than have it popping up on every post. :/

What can I say? I don't subscribe to the puerile mentality of "blame everyone else" when everything you need to know is in the public domain. If you elect to take exception to that, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it .

 

[penaltyfines]

What can I say? I don't subscribe to the puerile mentality of "blame everyone else" when everything you need to know is in the public domain. If you elect to take exception to that, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it .

You started banging on about railcards again, which isn't what we're talking about in this thread.

Let me try and explain this simply:

1. We're not questioning what the CoC/rules/T&Cs say.

2. Only a court of law can ultimately determine, in a given situation, whether someone is in breach of the CoC.

3. In the absense of a court of law on a train, we are discussing where the burden of proof is as to whether someone is compliant with the CoC.

If you still aren't clear on the above, please PM me and I will explain directly as I would hate to embarrass you further in open forum.

 

[yorkie]

3. In the absense of a court of law on a train, we are discussing where the burden of proof is as to whether someone is compliant with the CoC.

The OP referred to examples where the NCoC had been breached
Receipts, diary entries, "I can give you my rail-card number and you can look it up", all these are offered in lieu of a valid ticket and supporting railcard / reservation.

The original post said:-

Receipts, diary entries, "I can give you my rail-card number and you can look it up", all these are offered in lieu of a valid ticket and supporting railcard / reservation.

Penaltyfines - I think what Flamingo is asking is where the passenger has paid the right fare but without supporting documentation to validate the fare (e.g. Railcard, Voucher, seat reservation coupon). The burden clearly is with the passenger as I said before.

Other types of dispute over routeing/time restrictions are completely different, and clearly the burden rests with the TOC in such cases, but I wasn't going to go into them in this topic but sheff1's excellent post also made the very valid point of the different types of dispute, and then went into further details.

RJ's response is, I believe, accurate and appropriate given the examples given by the OP.

Where RJ says "appropriate supporting documents must be carried" that means things like bringing your Railcard. It does not mean bringing copies of the Routeing Guide or validity restrictions and that type of dispute is, I believe, beyond the scope of the OP's question and not included in the examples given.

RJ didn't bring railcards up - he was responding to the OP!

By the way, RJ isn't anti-customer. I've met him. Trust me.

 

[RJ]

You started banging on about railcards again, which isn't what we're talking about in this thread.

Let me try and explain this simply:

1. We're not questioning what the CoC/rules/T&Cs say.

2. Only a court of law can ultimately determine, in a given situation, whether someone is in breach of the CoC.

3. In the absense of a court of law on a train, we are discussing where the burden of proof is as to whether someone is compliant with the CoC.

If you still aren't clear on the above, please PM me and I will explain directly as I would hate to embarrass you further in open forum.

Here we go, another one who comes out with a load of drivel just because they don't agree with my general approach to posting .

The OP made a direct reference to people who may have purchased a railcard and a ticket with a railcard discount, but for whatever reason couldn't produce the railcard when the ticket was inspected. My point was that if you can't produce the railcard, it's your own fault and because the stance on this is fairly well publicised, there isn't a case for the passenger let along the TOC having the burden of proof.

Hope that's been sufficiently broken down enough for you to understand young man .

I've had an Oystercard fail, yes. But before I swiped it, not afterwards.

The stance is that if the validation at the start of your journey is unsuccessful then it's not a valid means to travel with.

I once purchased a Z1-6 season ticket on Oyster. The ticket loaded onto the card but a technical error mean it was not detected by barriers or handheld readers. So when I tried to get through the barriers seconds after finishing the transaction, it wouldn't work. The first few advisors on the Oyster Helpline were stumped but eventually I was told to buy paper tickets which would be refunded whilst they sorted out the problem.

The very next day I got into a major argument because a second Oyster I had "failed" during a journey. By failed I mean a feature in the database caused me to be overcharged (thus not letting me exit due to insufficient funds) and so the RPIs wouldn't let me leave without paying a Penalty Fare. I was told by the IAS and the TOC involved that because Oyster is a TfL product, my beef was with them. But, as the Oyster didn't work (for whatever reason), it was essentially an invalid means of travel as so the RPI was right to PF me. The letter from the TOC then told me to take it up with London TravelWatch/IRCAS, whilst the IAS went on to say that the PF had been overturned on this occasion and I received a refund. I respect TfL because they went out of their way to support me in this situation. Their customer service is very good.

Because I have conducted extensive research into the way Oyster works and know where the likely points are that cause confusion, I will think prior to issuing PFs to Oyster users.

 

[penaltyfines]

If you bought it, it's up to you to be able to prove you bought it. It might not be the best analogy but if I bought a tin of beans, then took them back for a refund it would be up to me to prove I'd bought them from the shop I took them to (by receipt) not the shop staff to prove I bought them there. (staff view and passenger)

Not quite an accurate analogy.

If you leave M&S with a tin of baked beans, and you are stopped outside by security/police... they have to prove that you have not paid for it, not you who has to prove that you did (or that you brought it in with you etc). Although it might be instrumental to keep your receipt or have some material proof

If you are stopped by the police and asked for your driving license and don't have it on you, they have to prove that you aren't licensed (although are able to ask for your ID to check with DVLA etc). The objective of driving licenses are that you need to be licensed to drive a car, not that you need to carry it with you when you drive. You're not prosecuted for not having it on you, you would be prosecuted for not being licensed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Here we go, another one who comes out with a load of drivel just because they don't agree with my general approach to posting .

It looked like a given that the railcard was not a valid excuse, and they were talking about other examples.

One can't argue with the CoC rules, they are pretty clear. But one could make a very compelling case that CoC rules are very unique and unreasonable in contract terms compared to say air/car/ferry travel - and why people don't expect them. How many people that travel on a ferry read every last T&C? How many people know the Road Traffic Act etc off by heart? 99% of the time it's no issue as the T&Cs/laws etc are what people reasonably expect.

Arguing that something is unreasonable is separate from whether they are enforceable (without going into unfair contract terms territory).

What would have been a better discussion is who needs to prove a route is valid in the routeing guide... the ticket inspector or the passenger?

 

[Flamingo]

Thanks guys, just gave the thread a quick scan, it's late (or rather, it's early).

As a general point, I was referring to the passengers and occasional posters who seem to think that it's everybody else's job to run around after them sorting their lives out for them (as I said, it's late and I can't be bothered to be more diplomatic than that!).

I'm quite reassured, Yorkie, most of the posts do seem to think that it is peoples own responsibility to sort their own lives out.

No system is foolproof, and personally, I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt than charge someone money when I am not 100% certain that I am correct (and what I'm doing would be seen as reasonable by the majority of my colleagues).

edited to add - arguments about Oyster cards I am staying well away from. If anybody shows me anything to do with them, I take their word for it!

penaltyfines - If a passenger has discovered an esoteric loophole, then I'd say it was up to them to prove it - even if by challenging the charged excess with customer services. I carry enough stuff around (pick up my bag if you don't believe me!), I'm not carrying a routeing guide as well, even if I had been issued with one (which I'm not). Also, I can tell you from experience, if I was to ring Control, I'd be told to go find someone who cares, as nobody in there knows or cares about tickets, they just want to get the trains from A to B on time. The only thing they would tell me is "For Gods sake, don't delay the train kicking them off!"

 

[penaltyfines]

If a passenger has discovered an esoteric loophole, then I'd say it was up to them to prove it - even if by challenging the charged excess with customer services. I carry enough stuff around (pick up my bag if you don't believe me!), I'm not carrying a routeing guide as well, even if I had been issued with one (which I'm not). Also, I can tell you from experience, if I was to ring Control, I'd be told to go find someone who cares, as nobody in there knows or cares about tickets, they just want to get the trains from A to B on time. The only thing they would tell me is "For Gods sake, don't delay the train kicking them off!"

I disagree.... next is the argument over whether something is a loophole or something that's intended but uncommon..... you have to apply it completely or not at all.

If a RPI/TM doesn't want to carry the routeing guide, and Control doesn't give you any backup... then that's not to the customers' disadvantage!

 

[Mojo]

A real problem is where you have a routeing dispute and the guard's source of information is also incorrect. I was travelling on a Derby to Darlington SOR ticket via Harrogate and the guard incorrectly told me that my ticket was not valid on that line. I refused to pay the fare and when it became clear to him that he wasn't going to get any money out of me, he walked off. When we were nearly at York he came back to me again and again asked for further information about the ticket and went off to call someone from the back cab. At least he did come back to me and admit that he was wrong and offered an apology, but said that it was only valid in the direction that I was travelling (eh?) Given it's valid both ways, what would happen if, on the way back someone also questioned its validity and the control centre offered similar incorrect advice?

 

[yorkie]

penaltyfines - If a passenger has discovered an esoteric loophole, then I'd say it was up to them to prove it - even if by challenging the charged excess with customer services. I carry enough stuff around (pick up my bag if you don't believe me!), I'm not carrying a routeing guide as well, even if I had been issued with one (which I'm not). Also, I can tell you from experience, if I was to ring Control, I'd be told to go find someone who cares, as nobody in there knows or cares about tickets, they just want to get the trains from A to B on time. The only thing they would tell me is "For Gods sake, don't delay the train kicking them off!"

There is no requirement for the customer to bring a copy of the RG with them (however in the case of an utterly ridiculous route such as the infamous Woking to Slough via Exeter, or whatever it was, by Embers25, in such a case common sense would mean the customer would be foolish not to bring the relevant pages) and there are some guards who do bring a copy of the RG with them, which is most commendable, but it's not a requirement for guards either - you can ring control. If you don't want to ring control, you can bring a copy of the RG if you wish. If you do not want to consult the RG and you do not wish to contact Control, then unless you post on this forum (which some guards have done) and hope to get an answer in time (which may or may not be possible!) then you just have to accept the ticket. You can always ask us after the event so you know for next time.

If you think the RG should be easier for guards (and therefore for passengers too!) I entirely agree. Perhaps if it's a big issue the Unions can demand ATOC make it easier to understand? (Bob Crow ripping into ATOC over the absurdly complex nature of the Routeing Guide would be interesting)

 

[HORNIMANS]

Actually you do not need a receipt as proof of purchase. And in times gone by when I was a lot younger, it was perfectly accaeptable to purchase a ticket on the train[paytrains] remember them or even pay at the other end!

 

[mrcheek]

Not quite an accurate analogy.

If you leave M&S with a tin of baked beans, and you are stopped outside by security/police... they have to prove that you have not paid for it, not you who has to prove that you did (or that you brought it in with you etc). Although it might be instrumental to keep your receipt or have some material proof

If you are stopped by the police and asked for your driving license and don't have it on you, they have to prove that you aren't licensed (although are able to ask for your ID to check with DVLA etc). The objective of driving licenses are that you need to be licensed to drive a car, not that you need to carry it with you when you drive. You're not prosecuted for not having it on you, you would be prosecuted for not being licensed.

And yours is a very poor analogy.
There is no law to say that you have to carry your driving licence while driving. THats why the police will ask you to produce it at a later date if necessary.
There IS a law that states that when travelling on a train you must be in physical possession of a valid ticket (including a railcard if you purchased the ticket at a reduced price).

If you are stopped outside Marks and Spencer, you are merely a person going about your daily business in a public place. Hence the onus of proof is on the person who has physically stopped you from going about your business (and if they have no valid reason for suspicion, then they have committed an assault on you. "Dont touch me, thats assault").
When you are on the train, there is a person who is paid, as his job, to check every passengers ticket. They are not stopping you in the street. You are on THEIR train, using THEIR service, hence it is up to YOU to prove you have a right to be there.

 

[penaltyfines]

If you are stopped outside Marks and Spencer, you are merely a person going about your daily business in a public place.

If you are stopped inside M&S the burden of proof is just the same...