Unused return ticket - investigation

[RJ]

The other week I bought a FOR from London. The return portion was unused for a few weeks and was in my ticket wallet the whole time.

A few days before the ticket expired I wished to use it from the station of origin on the return ticket, but got an 09 error on the barriers when I put it through the ticket gate. With nobody standing by the closed gates, I had to fetch the gateline assistant from the station entrance, who took the ticket and asked me if I had used it before. I said no and he looked at it more intently and took it away.

While this was going on, I said to him that I was intending catch the 0653 train, which was a hint that I needed to be on my way to get the train. He continued staring at the ticket and took out his pen and marked the reverse side with the date, then kept looking at it. I repeated that I needed to catch that train, so he took his time looking at his watch then said I should have turned up earlier and that he was only doing his job. This whole episode was going on for almost 3 minutes. His colleagues were watching the exchange but didn’t get involved.

Eventually he gave the ticket back, moving in deliberate slow motion and opened the gate. I only caught the train because I ran and it left late. Had I missed it, I’d have been late for my meeting and would have returned home to do that remotely, so could have been put in a position where I had an unused ticket that was marked.

My questions are, is there an inherent problem with customers using an unused return ticket before the date of expiry. Does this automatically trigger an investigation for the majority of people who do this?

Also, are gateline staff supposed to mark tickets with the date before they have been used for travel?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Believe barrier error code 09 usually means INVAL CHK or "Ticket code read error" which might explain why the gateline assistant was puzzled as to what was seemingly wrong with the ticket and why it didn't work the barrier.

 

[Haywain]

The other week I bought a FOR from London. The return portion was unused for a few weeks and was in my ticket wallet the whole time.

A few days before the ticket expired I wished to use it from the station of origin on the return ticket, but got an 09 error on the barriers when I put it through the ticket gate. With nobody standing by the closed gates, I had to fetch the gateline assistant from the station entrance, who took the ticket and asked me if I had used it before. I said no and he looked at it more intently and took it away.

While this was going on, I said to him that I was intending catch the 0653 train, which was a hint that I needed to be on my way to get the train. He continued staring at the ticket and took out his pen and marked the reverse side with the date, then kept looking at it. I repeated that I needed to catch that train, so he took his time looking at his watch then said I should have turned up earlier and that he was only doing his job. This whole episode was going on for almost 3 minutes. His colleagues were watching the exchange but didn’t get involved.

Eventually he gave the ticket back, moving in deliberate slow motion and opened the gate. I only caught the train because I ran and it left late. Had I missed it, I’d have been late for my meeting and would have returned home to do that remotely, so could have been put in a position where I had an unused ticket that was marked.

My questions are, is there an inherent problem with customers using an unused return ticket before the date of expiry. Does this automatically trigger an investigation for the majority of people who do this?

Also, are gateline staff supposed to mark tickets with the date before they have been used for travel?

Did you make a complaint? It would be well justified.

 

[L401CJF]

My questions are, is there an inherent problem with customers using an unused return ticket before the date of expiry. Does this automatically trigger an investigation for the majority of people who do this?

Also, are gateline staff supposed to mark tickets with the date before they have been used for travel?

There are a fair few out there who try to use the return portion multiple times before the expiry date. I'm a guard and generally won't bat an eyelid unless something seems off - ie it looks like it's been through a war zone or something. I'll never mark a ticket full stop if it involves changing onto another train to complete the journey (after seeing the issues some people have had on this forum with guards marking tickets then being accused of using it again when they are actually just continuing their journey or having stopped for a break of journey). If I feel I should mark a ticket in the rare instance I have a suspicion, I'll write the station code they boarded at followed by the date just so they cant restart the full journey. (Eg CRE 21/05)

Some staff have a habit of crossing out dates and writing the current date on it which I've seen multiple issues with on this forum. Personally if I see a crossed out date which isn't today's, I'll ask for more info on their journey and usually leave them to it.

In your instance a quick visual check of the ticket to confirm all is in order and then let you through to your train seems appropriate, I'd probably write a complaint personally.

I see this happen a lot at Chester when I pass through - tickets not opening the gates and the staff will quickly check them and open the gate. If there is a problem they'll send you to the office.

 

[methecooldude]

Believe barrier error code 09 usually means INVAL CHK or "Ticket code read error" which might explain why the gateline assistant was puzzled as to what was seemingly wrong with the ticket and why it didn't work the barrier.

Indeed, 09 is a read error, usually caused by a bent, demagnetised, or corrupted ticket. Pretty normal thing

 

[jfollows]

Whilst it's laudable that staff are on the lookout for fare evasion and re-use of tickets, it goes too far when the correct use of a perfectly valid ticket is treated as potentially fraudulent, as RJ reports. I also praise L401CJF for a sensible and pragmatic approach. I would personally make a complaint if I were treated in the way RJ reports; I wouldn't expect anything to come of it and would expect to be fobbed off with anodyne statements about "staff doing their job" but at least I'd have the satisfaction of making someone do something as a result of my complaint.

If a ticket has a month's validity, then it should be treated as valid unless there's a compelling reason to think otherwise, which there generally isn't. It's better to treat passengers properly and let the occasional mis-use slip through than treating passengers as potential criminals. The continuing move to e-tickets and ensuring that they're properly scanned when used will eliminate the problem anyway in due course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2023 ==

My questions are, is there an inherent problem with customers using an unused return ticket before the date of expiry. Does this automatically trigger an investigation for the majority of people who do this?

Also, are gateline staff supposed to mark tickets with the date before they have been used for travel?

There are problems with people re-using return tickets, but that doesn't stretch to treating everyone with a long-dated return ticket being treated as a potential criminal. There are cases in which people have effectively used a long-dated return ticket as a season ticket, and of course this needs to be identified and prevented.
Ticket marking is haphazard and unhelpful if done badly - sometime staff cross out the return date, but putting an annotation separately denoting the ticket's use is more sensible. Scribbling on and obliterating dates is excessive, but it happens.
As I've said above, if the ticket is an e-ticket and is scanned at the time of use, this avoids having to scribble on the ticket and marks the use of the ticket at the time.

There is too often a mentality today that the passenger is wrong, and this needs to be avoided. Common sense and courtesy should be used because the majority of passengers are not deliberately trying to avoid paying for travel.

 

[ChewChewTrain]

Why not simply have an area on the back of the ticket where an inspector shown the ticket can write their number, the date and time, the current location, and (if on a train) the service number? It seems that what is missing here is a convention for what should be written and how it should be interpreted.

 

[maniacmartin]

I wonder if they thought you had demagnetised it to make it impossible to read previous gateline uses from the magstripe?

 

[tomuk]

Why not simply have an area on the back of the ticket where an inspector shown the ticket can write their number, the date and time, the current location, and (if on a train) the service number? It seems that what is missing here is a convention for what should be written and how it should be interpreted.

CCST tickets did\do have an empty endorsements box on the reverse. I assume this is for exactly the described eventuality.

 

[Starmill]

Common error for the gate. Very confusing reply from the assistant. Yes, dating or clipping a ticket including electronically immediately before boarding is indeed very common. At some stations such as Manchester Piccadilly nearly every eticket will have this done. It's a bad idea for the reasons you give. I'd complain about the situation if I were you as you're very likely to be denied travel later if your ticket is clipped and then you don't use it. Even if it's later the same day.

 

[Haywain]

My questions are, is there an inherent problem with customers using an unused return ticket before the date of expiry. Does this automatically trigger an investigation for the majority of people who do this?

By definition, they will all be unused before the date of expiry at some point. And the vast majority won't be given a second glance.

 

[island]

Code 09, as we know, means a ticket cannot be read by the barrier. It is likely that the staff member was suspicious of a period return ticket being reused and the magnetic stripe being intentionally damaged to that end.

It is not usual, but not abnormal, for a ticket to be marked with the date upon use.

I suspect I know precisely why this has happened here but specifying further would compromise someone's privacy.

 

[Haywain]

I suspect I know precisely why this has happened here but specifying further would compromise someone's privacy.

My thoughts also. I suspect the member of staff was wanting to get a reaction to their behaviour.

 

[RJ]

Did you make a complaint? It would be well justified.

I tend not to make complaints for relatively trivial matters. On this occasion I caught the train so no palpable harm done. I wanted to see what the consensus was to see if it’s reasonable to be handled in that manner. I’ve been working on stations for over 10 years and where I am we don’t start on people who have a ticket that looks valid. If anything an investigation on suspected re-use would start in a covert manner.

The other staff present were all people I recognised - I frequently pass through that gateline with various Priv/staff tickets and passes depending on where I’m going which never work the barriers so I interact with them often. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had a word in his ear after I left.

This guy, I had never seen before. I wasn’t in uniform, instead dressed in formalwear with a public rate ticket. I make use of FORs if I’m working on the train and travelling during the peak, which is not often.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2023 ==

My thoughts also. I suspect the member of staff was wanting to get a reaction to their behaviour.

I’ve never had a reputation for being a hot head so they’d be on a hiding to nowhere with that one. For a change, this person appeared quite a few years younger than me and I suspect other passengers might have been a lot more forthright than me in that situation. It’s just not my style.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2023 ==

I wonder if they thought you had demagnetised it to make it impossible to read previous gateline uses from the magstripe?

That is a possibility but personally I wouldn’t give them that much credit. I would expect a gateline assistant to know that an 09 error is inconclusive.

The only thing that could have given rise to suspicion was the fact I was using it 4 days before expiry, but if a ticket hasn’t been marked or noted as being presented before then what is there to be gained?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2023 ==

Code 09, as we know, means a ticket cannot be read by the barrier. It is likely that the staff member was suspicious of a period return ticket being reused and the magnetic stripe being intentionally damaged to that end.

It is not usual, but not abnormal, for a ticket to be marked with the date upon use.

I suspect I know precisely why this has happened here but specifying further would compromise someone's privacy.

That would be a very elaborate scheme on the passenger’s part. It’s a two hour journey to London. If used, the ticket would have to have been unmarked on trains where the tickets always get checked and not swallowed by the barrier in London. Then I would have to know that data is stored on the strip and can be wiped and also actively avoiding issue on bog roll or CCST with a barcode. What’s the likelihood of a random passenger doing all of that?

 

[fandroid]

It's a bit weird to make assumptions about the date of use of a ticket that's got a full month's validity. Should we say to passengers "Be careful if you take a long holiday as you might be questioned when you return"? The ticket's either valid or invalid, not increasing dubious as it gets older.

 

[Trainbike46]

CCST tickets did\do have an empty endorsements box on the reverse. I assume this is for exactly the described eventuality.

I've had ticket office staff write requests to accept the ticket in unusual ways due to disruption in that box, combined with the ticket office stamp. I'm assuming that's what it is for?

 

[jfollows]

I remember what appeared to be a roll-out of nice equipment for "gripping" tickets on trains which printed the train's reporting number and the date on the ticket at the time. Nice and clear and didn't deface the ticket in any way. Presumably these were a one-off initiative, have since all broken, and we're back now with tickets being scribbled on and defaced with a pen instead. So I don't have a lot of sympathy with the operators if they won't invest in the technology and the training to police this properly. Today's solution is probably proper scanning of e-tickets as well as better training for staff in the complexities of the ticketing system we have. I won't say that I've never re-used a return ticket, but if I had it was a long time ago and I wouldn't consider doing so today - especially not with e-tickets.

 

[RJ]

I remember what appeared to be a roll-out of nice equipment for "gripping" tickets on trains which printed the train's reporting number and the date on the ticket at the time. Nice and clear and didn't deface the ticket in any way. Presumably these were a one-off initiative, have since all broken, and we're back now with tickets being scribbled on and defaced with a pen instead. So I don't have a lot of sympathy with the operators if they won't invest in the technology and the training to police this properly. Today's solution is probably proper scanning of e-tickets as well as better training for staff in the complexities of the ticketing system we have. I won't say that I've never re-used a return ticket, but if I had it was a long time ago and I wouldn't consider doing so today - especially not with e-tickets.

There are still quite a few around, my ticket got clipped with one last week

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 May 2023 ==

It's a bit weird to make assumptions about the date of use of a ticket that's got a full month's validity. Should we say to passengers "Be careful if you take a long holiday as you might be questioned when you return"? The ticket's either valid or invalid, not increasing dubious as it gets older.

It has happened in the past - once a guard out and out declared that I must have used the return portion of a SSR before, because it looked a bit worn having been in my bag for three weeks. I of course confirmed I hadn’t used it before. She was adamant I must have, so I asked her if putting a ticket through a gate once would really cause it to be in that condition. I ended up with an Unpaid Fare Notice for that journey which got written off. Since then, to reduce the chances of unfounded accusations I made sure I kept unused tickets in a wallet, not that it makes a difference to those determined to be suspicious!

In that case I frequently travelled down to London on Friday afternoons when I bought open retuns and sometimes travelled back in the morning peak on Mondays, so would have to buy a different ticket and ended up with return portions which often went unused for two or three weeks.

There are a fair few out there who try to use the return portion multiple times before the expiry date. I'm a guard and generally won't bat an eyelid unless something seems off - ie it looks like it's been through a war zone or something. I'll never mark a ticket full stop if it involves changing onto another train to complete the journey (after seeing the issues some people have had on this forum with guards marking tickets then being accused of using it again when they are actually just continuing their journey or having stopped for a break of journey). If I feel I should mark a ticket in the rare instance I have a suspicion, I'll write the station code they boarded at followed by the date just so they cant restart the full journey. (Eg CRE 21/05)

Some staff have a habit of crossing out dates and writing the current date on it which I've seen multiple issues with on this forum. Personally if I see a crossed out date which isn't today's, I'll ask for more info on their journey and usually leave them to it.

In your instance a quick visual check of the ticket to confirm all is in order and then let you through to your train seems appropriate, I'd probably write a complaint personally.

I see this happen a lot at Chester when I pass through - tickets not opening the gates and the staff will quickly check them and open the gate. If there is a problem they'll send you to the office.

Sometimes I’ve used a return portion that has already been dated and nothing gets said when checked on the train as it’s always on a ticket where the journey has multiple legs or a cross London marker.

In this situation I would expect a question to be quite reasonably asked if the ticket had been marked or if the journey on the ticket could be done on a direct train.

Sounds like the way you do it works well all around.

 

[Southern Beau]

Without having a “validator machine” which you use before travel (similar to the carnet system), I can’t see a solution if a station does not have gates (only then if they are in operation and staff make you use them). What are the options?

 

[43066]

So the upshot of this entire discussion is that the OP’s ticket didn’t work in the barriers, so needed to be checked manually by gateline staff in the usual way. The OP was then allowed through the barriers, and caught the train they were aiming for.

So very much a case of “nothing to see here”, unless I’m missing something?!

What is the “investigation” mentioned in the thread title?

 

[XAM2175]

I remember what appeared to be a roll-out of nice equipment for "gripping" tickets on trains which printed the train's reporting number and the date on the ticket at the time. Nice and clear and didn't deface the ticket in any way. Presumably these were a one-off initiative, have since all broken, and we're back now with tickets being scribbled on and defaced with a pen instead.

There are still quite a few around, my ticket got clipped with one last week

The Zifa grippers are lovely pieces of kit but really quite pricey, and (it must be admitted) of ever-decreasing utility as paper tickets become fewer and fewer. I don't believe that they break all that often, but simply rather that TOCs have not only stopped issuing them but also lost interest in the matter completely, so they're mostly now only in the hands of staff who've either had them since they were issued or who've gone out of their way to track one down.

 

[WelshBluebird]

So the upshot of this entire discussion is that the OP’s ticket didn’t work in the barriers, so needed to be checked manually by gateline staff in the usual way.

The experience doesn't sound usual at all to me!

and caught the train they were aiming for.

Only because they ran and the train was running late.

So very much a case of “nothing to see here”, unless I’m missing something?!

I mean in a time when the railway needs to get peolle to want to use it, inconveniencing fare paying passengers and generally treating then like they have done something wrong when they haven't is not a good thing to be doing

 

[RJ]

So the upshot of this entire discussion is that the OP’s ticket didn’t work in the barriers, so needed to be checked manually by gateline staff in the usual way. The OP was then allowed through the barriers, and caught the train they were aiming for.

So very much a case of “nothing to see here”, unless I’m missing something?!

What is the “investigation” mentioned in the thread title?

I too wondered if I was missing something!

The general consensus seems to be that it’s not normal to be subjected to an investigation for fraudulent re-use when starting the return leg of a journey on a period return. The jury is out on whether your view that this is the “usual way” of checking a ticket is shared by the majority

 

[Adam Williams]

Treating passengers with such suspicion under these circumstances is unreasonable. I've had read errors happen during normal course of use of a magstripe ticket, seemingly just from moving it in and out of my wallet more than once in a way that degraded the paper the material the stripe/paper was made from (or maybe the barrier damaged it, I dunno).

It's inherently a more flaky fulfilment method than e.g. an E-Ticket.

Perhaps I'm in a minority though! I've also managed to slice my the side of my hand open with the side of a CCST ticket, which I suspect doesn't happen on a very regular basis.

 

[RJ]

Common error for the gate. Very confusing reply from the assistant. Yes, dating or clipping a ticket including electronically immediately before boarding is indeed very common. At some stations such as Manchester Piccadilly nearly every eticket will have this done. It's a bad idea for the reasons you give. I'd complain about the situation if I were you as you're very likely to be denied travel later if your ticket is clipped and then you don't use it. Even if it's later the same day.

Ok, fair that in some places tickets are clipped before travel. I think in most cases it doesn’t affect the passenger in practice but as you acknowledge it can also be a bad idea, because it might create an issue if they change their plans and try to travel later or get a refund before any travel is done.

Fortunately in the overwhelming majority of situations, if a passenger has a reasonable explanation for a ticket being marked when travelling from the origin station there isn’t any issue.

 

[43066]

The experience doesn't sound usual at all to me!

It doesn’t sound particularly unusual to me either.

I too wondered if I was missing something!

The general consensus seems to be that it’s not normal to be subjected to an investigation for fraudulent re-use when starting the return leg of a journey on a period return. The jury is out on whether your view that this is the “usual way” of checking a ticket is shared by the majority

I’m still missing something - where was the “investigation for fraudulent re-use”?! It just sounds like your ticket was checked!

If you’re staff, were you travelling on a priv?

He continued staring at the ticket and took out his pen and marked the reverse side with the date, then kept looking at it. I repeated that I needed to catch that train, so he took his time looking at his watch then said I should have turned up earlier and that he was only doing his job. This whole episode was going on for almost 3 minutes. His colleagues were watching the exchange but didn’t get involved.

On the face of it a little passive aggressive, but these things can be open to interpretation. If we asked the staff member I wonder if he’d say something along the lines of “a passenger’s ticket was rejected, he then tried to to rush me when checking it”.

I can understand people complaining about valid tickets being rejected but, if your ticket is rejected by a gateline, it’s reasonable to expect it will be inspected. And it sounds like you were then allowed through without any further query?

 

[Hadders]

So the upshot of this entire discussion is that the OP’s ticket didn’t work in the barriers, so needed to be checked manually by gateline staff in the usual way. The OP was then allowed through the barriers, and caught the train they were aiming for.

So very much a case of “nothing to see here”, unless I’m missing something?!

What is the “investigation” mentioned in the thread title?

The opening post describes a very poor, unprofessional level of customer service. That really isn't acceptable in a customer facing role. It should not take 3 minutes to validate a ticket at a gateline.

 

[RJ]

It doesn’t sound particularly unusual to me either.



I’m still missing something - where was the “investigation for fraudulent re-use”?! It just sounds like your ticket was checked!

If you’re staff, were you travelling on a priv?



On the face of it a little passive aggressive, but these things can be open to interpretation. If we asked the staff member I wonder if he’d say something along the lines of “a passenger’s ticket was rejected, he then tried to to rush me when checking it”.

I can understand people complaining about valid tickets being rejected but, if your ticket is rejected by a gateline, it’s reasonable to expect it will be inspected. And it sounds like you were then allowed through without any further query?

There was relevance to me mentioning in the first post I using a FOR - this means First Class Anytime Return. I’m not entitled to any Priv discount on First Class Anytime tickets so I paid the public rate. Being a regular passenger on the route I have no interest in chancing it with the guard - I pay for a ticket and sit down so I can get to work straight away in comfort.

Something I have come occasionally come across in the past is being accused of fraud simply for travelling on a First Class ticket - and on occasion being made to produce a ticket before being allowed to sit down while others are warmly welcomed aboard, or having the trolley steam past me and having to ask the guard if they can get the host to bring the trolley back.

The same doesn’t tend to happen on planes - they check the ticket and are welcoming and non-judgemental. I’ve found this to be consistent across several carriers and I always write in with serious plaudits for the exceptional level of service. I do the same for railway staff where my expectations have been exceeded. And I’m pleased to say that on this line, the guards and hosts on board have consistently been super nice and the RI/RPIs on board have the appropriate demeanour and always professional. I’ve also found everybody else at the station in question to be consistently friendly and professional - they don’t work for the same TOC as the one I travel with on those tickets.

With the greatest due respect, not knowing what a FOR is or that an 09 error on the ticket gates is nothing to do with validity…. I’m minded to agree with the majority of fellow staff and fellow passengers who have voiced opinions on presentation of an unused period return in itself not warranting a fraud investigation. I would not wish that treatment on any other passenger in the same situation and would suggest that anyone behaving in that manner is creating unnecessary conflict with customers.

But thank you kindly, for the alternative viewpoint

I’m not going to complain to the TOC, as that’s not my style. If I get stopped by the same person on a valid ticket, there are other ways of nipping it in the bud without doing anything wrong.

 

[yorkie]

The opening post describes a very poor, unprofessional level of customer service. That really isn't acceptable in a customer facing role. It should not take 3 minutes to validate a ticket at a gateline.

Quite! @43066 are you saying the experience is normal, expected, acceptable, or any combination of those three?

 

[AdamWW]

With the greatest due respect, not knowing what a FOR is or that an 09 error on the ticket gates is nothing to do with validity…. I’m minded to agree with the majority of fellow staff and fellow passengers who have voiced opinions on presentation of an unused period return in itself not warranting a fraud investigation. I would not wish that treatment on any other passenger in the same situation and would suggest that anyone behaving in that manner is creating unnecessary conflict with customers.

For what it's worth, you can add me to the list of non-staff who agree that the situation you described was not appropriate.

It sounds (and apologies if I've got this wrong) as if you were using the return part of a ticket for the outbound leg of a day trip - which is perfectly valid of course but I can see how that could raise suspicion if someone was aware that's what you were doing.

Unlikely though if you've never seen that staff member before and in any case the correct response to such suspicion should not be to try to make the passenger miss their train as some kind of punishment.